Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TANGANYIKA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of a joint communiqué by Her Majesty's Government and the Tanganyika Government on the assistance which we intend to afford to Tanganyika which is being published this morning.
Briefly we shall give Tanganyika the £4·75 million of Colonial Development and Welfare money already allocated, an additional development grant of £4 million and a Commonwealth Assistance loan up to £4 million to the extent that this is required over and above the £8·75 million of grants and any other sums which may be available from other sources in order to finance the Tanganyika Government's new three-year Development Plan of £8 million a year. In addition, we shall make an interest-free loan, with a grace period on repayment, of £6 million towards the compensation scheme; and a loan of £3 million on the normal terms for Commonwealth Assistance loans towards commutation of pensions. We shall provide certain sums in respect of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation and hand over the assets of the Corporation, valued at £1 million: we shall pay for the Tanganyika military forces up to 31st March next year, about £200,000, and also make a cash payment for Tanganyika's share of the stores of the East African land forces, £34.000. We intend to enter into a Technical Assistance Agreement with the Tanganyika Government; and finally, the Colonial Development Corporation is investigating certain projects for which they may give assistance.
In our present economic circumstances, any proposal for additional overseas aid must necessarily be looked at with great care. But we recognise the quite exceptional importance of enabling Tanganyika

to proceed with confidence with implementing her Plan. I have, therefore, felt it right to increase our original offer of assistance and to re-design it to meet Tanganyika's needs.
It is our hope and belief that other friendly Governments will wish to join in helping Tanganyika with her Development Plan. I have greatly welcomed the visit to London of the Governor to represent Tanganyika's future needs, which he has done with great ability; and I am also glad to say that Mr. Nyerere has expressed satisfaction with this settlement.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from this side of the House we welcome with great pleasure the statement which he has just made, especially because we have his assurance that the rather lengthy agreement which he has read out has the full approval of Mr. Nyerere and his Government? May I also echo what he said about the Governor of Tanganyika, whose skill in negotiations no doubt played a valuable part in this exercise? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that the Governor's visit to this country would have been completely unnecessary if Her Majesty's Government had at the beginning put forward to the Tanganyikan Government a reasonable and acceptable settlement like this?
Is the Colonial Secretary aware that hon. Members on this side of the House certainly feel that the Questions which we put down and the debate which we initiated on the problems of East Africa have thoroughly justified our activities in this Session of Parliament? I know that some hon. Members opposite also took part. We are grateful that the pressure on the Government has now put them into this highly satisfactory position in relation to the great country of Tanganyika. May I conclude by wishing prosperity to Tanganyika and its Government and people in working out their valuable and progressive three-year plan?

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is very satis-factory to be able to end the term—quite a strenuous term—on a note which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House will warmly endorse. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that many of my hon. and right hon.


Friends have been deeply concerned about this matter and have made representations to me. It is a matter of deep satisfaction to me that at this stage in the development of Tanganyika we can say we have reached agreement on this, perhaps the last main issue that lay between us.

Mr. Wall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to achieve this most satisfactory settlement which will enable Tanganyika to take her rightful status in the Commonwealth? May I ask whether there is any question of phasing the amount of money towards the Development Plan and whether this grant and loan will enable Tanganyika to fulfil the plan which has already been adopted in Dar-es-Salaam?

Mr. Macleod: My hon. Friend will be able to study the official communiqué which is published this morning and which goes into more detail of the phasing in relation to the Development Plan. That is really what I meant by saying that we have redesigned this part to meet Tanganyika's needs?

Mr. Stonehouse: May I associate myself with the congratulations extended to the Colonial Secretary on reaching this new agreement? May we ask how he has managed to succeed with the Chancellor whereas the N.U.T. has not yet succeeded? May I ask, further, what commitments he has entered into with regard to the second and the third—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What I am permitted to allow are some questions on the subject matter of the statement. There is nothing in the statement about the N.U.T.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask the Colonial Secretary what commitments he has entered into with regard to the second and third years of the Development Plan?

Mr. Macleod: I very much wish that we could make an offer of £42 million to Tanganyika. That does not strike me as an ungenerous figure. All the amounts that I put here are really related. Some of them, like the compensation, will be spread over a longer period. But the moneys related to the development scheme are related to the three-year plan

and will presumably be drawn down within that period.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that hon. Members on this side of the House have been astonished that even this Government could manage to infuriate a man so reasonable and charming as Mr. Nyerere, and that we are delighted that, owing to the efforts of the Colonial Secretary, the Government have now been persuaded to change their attitude and to be more reasonable? As my right hon. Friend has said, we think that it is apparently due to the pressure from this side of the House on the Government on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I should like to say at this point, as I think is obvious because I do not myself provide moneys, that I have had a most satisfactory response to my proposal and to the announcement I have made from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who realised very well the importance of the proposals I was putting before him.

Mr. H. Clarke: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, and also congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has seen the light in very difficult times? May I say how delighted must all the friends of Tanganyika be that we have done right by the country despite our troubles? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we shall give full co-operation to Mr. Nyerere should he seek other finances from other friendly Powers to complete the financing of this development plan?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, certainly. That is well in hand. Although I cannot make any announcement about it and it would not be right for an announcement to come from me or from the British Government, I am very satisfied with the progress which we have been making with other countries.

Following is the communique:
Her Majesty's Government have reviewed with the Tanganyika Government the financial resources which are likely to be available to that Government for recurrent and capital expenditure, particularly in respect of the three-year Development Plan, in the immediate future. Her Majesty's Government have agreed, subject as necessary to the approval of Parliament, to give the following assistance to Tanganyika:

(1) The balance of the Colonial Development and Welfare monies already promised


to Tanganyika is estimated to be £4·75 million at the present time. This sum will continue to be available in the form of grants, for purposes to be agreed with the Tanganyika Government, £1 million to be available before independence, and the balance, spread evenly over the period of the Plan.
(2) An additional special grant towards the Development Plan of £4 million, available to be drawn evenly over the three years of the Plan, beginning from 1st July, 1961.
(3) A Commonwealth Assistance loan over the period up to a total of £4 million, to the extent that additional sums up to this amount, over and above the grants referred to above and any other sources of finance which may become available, are required to finance the Tanganyika Government's development programme.
(4) An interest-free loan of £6 million, with a grace period on repayment, to assist the Tanganyika Government to meet its share of the compensation scheme for overseas officers.
(5) A separate loan of £3 million on the normal terms for Commonwealth Assistance loans to assist the Tanganyika Government in respect of the commutation of pensions of officers retiring from the service.
(6) The sum of up to £109,000 which is estimated by the Tanganyika Government to be required by the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation in the year ending 30th September, 1962, from the grants provided for in the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation Act, 1957. Her Majesty's Government have also agreed to extend to ten years the period of repayment of the £90,000 remaining to he repaid from the interest-free loan made to the Corporation. In addition Her Majesty's Government have agreed to transfer to the Tanganyika Government their rights of ownership of the Corporation's assets, which are valued at about £1 million.
(7) Her Majesty's Government will continue to meet the costs of Tanganyika's military forces in the period following independence until the 31st March, 1962, up to about £200,000; and will also make a cash payment for Tanganyika's share (estimated at £34,000) of the stores of the East African Land Forces.
(8) Her Majesty's Government will also be happy to enter into a Technical Assistance agreement with the Government of Tanganyika after independence.

2. In addition the Colonial Development Corporation is in process of investigating certain new projects in Tanganyika and, subject to examination of detailed proposals on the usual criteria and the willingness of the Corporation to proceed. Her Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to participation by the Corporation up to about £0·75 million.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE

11.14 a.m.

Mr. David James: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of the protection of the general public against crimes of violence.
There is no doubt at all that the fivefold increase in crimes of violence which have taken place since the war gives grave cause for apprehension to many defenceless people. If I can possibly declare my interests in this matter, I have five children who have to walk up a narrow lane to get home from school and, owing to the zeal of the Whips' Office, my wife spends many evenings on her own, so I am fully a party to the apprehension which all of us feel.
An American judge recently said in New York:
The philosophy of responsibility has been replaced by the philosophy of excuse. Under this new concept all criminals, young and old, are sick people and far from seeing in their criminal actions anything for which the offenders are responsible, we are told to learn to recognise in criminality the existence of something for which society alone is responsible.
He concluded
At this juncture, when teenage crime is of such general concern, it would be fruitful for our civilisation to reaffirm a philosophy of responsibility and cut down the philosophy of excuse to proper size.
I want particularly to associate myself with that concept, that the overwhelming majority of us are completely free, because I am about to explore one of the harder frontiers of responsibility as opposed to irresponsibility.
My first slight complaint is that notwithstanding the Mental Health Act, 1959, not enough people are being segregated under Section 72. Surely the principle must be that the wicked go to prison and the sick go to hospital. One effect of the failure to segregate is that the genuinely wicked tend to "swing the lead." I am told that it is a commonplace in prison for people to say, "You cannot say that to me; I have been under the doctor."
The majority of people are completely normal, so if we can get the people who are genuinely ill out of prison, it can only be to the benefit of such reformative


use as the prisons may have. Quite frankly, an immense amount depends on the way we play this hand. When the Army invented the term "battle sickness" the number of people who found that the war was rather tedious grew considerably. The Royal Air Force, I believe, with a much greater sense of actuality, referred to it as "lack of moral fibre," and one result was that extraordinarily few people found that they did not want to fly.
My real concern is not with the schizophrenic and others who have definite mental disease but with the psychopath. I am aware that this is an extremely unsatisfactory term and, in many ways, an unscientific term. The schizophrenic stands astride any normal frontier between the responsible and the irresponsible. It is further complicated by the fact that there are apparently two different types, those who learn by experience that crime simply does not pay, which suggests, at least, that they are wicked, and those who are not affected by any treatment whatever until whatever fire within them burns out, which possibly suggests that they are not responsible. I do not want to go into a philosophical argument as to whether these people are mad or bad; the only point that I want to make is that they are extremely dangerous.
The 1959 Act defines psychopathic disease as meaning
a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the patient, and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.
I have no fault to find with that definition except in so far as I am led to believe that no medical treatment is available.
I think that the Danes are something like a quarter of a century ahead of us in this respect. Dr. Stürup, medical superintendent of Herstedvester detention centre, which is a psychopathic detention centre, says,
There is a group of individuals who are not mentally ill, nor mentally defective, and yet they differ so widely in their conduct from the general run of people that they frequently become a serious problem to others and to themselves.
I think that an even better definition is ascribed to one of the chief professors of psychiatry in this country, who said

that he could no more define a psychopath than an elephant, but he recognised an elephant when he saw one in the zoo. That is the key to what I am saying. Even if we know nothing about this condition and cannot say whether these people are mad or bad, they are definitely recognisable as such. It might help if I were to give a very brief description of what a psychopath is. A psychopath apparently—he may be a person of high or low intelligence—is someone who seems to suffer from a lack of maturity.
All of us, I imagine, have gone through the phase when we knocked our small sister down or smashed our brother's train. Our parents did not worry much about that, because they knew that we would grow out of it, but the psychopath does not grow out of it. When these destructive tendencies are allied, not only to full strength, but also—and this is vital—to full sexual power, the community at large is at serious risk. I shall quote one or two examples.
Another fact about the psychopath is that he is incapable even of taking a sensible view of his long-term interests and is not capable of weighing the consequences. There was the case of Terry who was hanged for the Worthing bank murder. There is no doubt that he was a psychopath, yet so little was he capable of appreciating the consequences of his act, that he actually committed the murder on the day when his closest friend was being hanged for another murder. I do not want to get into the turgid waters of controversy over the death penalty, but in so far as British justice gives people the benefit of the doubt, I take serious leave to wonder whether We are right to hang people who suffer from this perculiar complaint.
Looking to more recent cases which have shocked the general public a great deal, I think that it can be quite confidently asserted that we under the existing law—and the Danes as long ago as 1939—should have and could have put both Heath and Albert Edward Jones inside on an indeterminate sentence. Had that happened four peculiarly unpleasant human tragedies would have been averted. By the same token, Donald Hume, who served eight years for being an accessory after the fact of murder, was a blatant psychopath. While I know that there were no powers then to detain him, it was none the less


an assumption of our judicial system which allowed that man to be set free and to murder two innocent people in Switzerland.
We have reached the absurd position that while in the last year we have hanged two people whose mental soundness was in doubt, we have also in the case of Jones, in his first trial, given a determinate sentence to a man of whom it could be said that there was every probability and a certainty that he would do it again. My object in raising this matter is to urge that psychopaths, as in Denmark, should receive an indeterminate sentence.
I am perfectly aware that all these matters are covered by the 1959 Act, into which immense thought was put. My complaint is not so much about the Act as about its actual application. I do not believe that medical evidence is being produced in all those cases where it should be produced. I have one or two proposals to make in this connection. First, I suggest—with great deference to lawyers, because I am no lawyer—that medical evidence should be the property of the court. Normally, particularly in a capital crime, the prosecution and the defence bring forward their expert witnesses. We have the sordid situation in which the defence touts around until it can find someone, who may be far from sound, who is prepared to talk a lot of nonsense in the witness box. That does a great deal to discredit a most honourable and useful and increasingly scientific profession.
My contention is that it is the business of the judge and the jury to establish the fact, did he or did he not commit the crime? Subsequently the judge needs to know the nature of the man. He normally hears police evidence as to previous convictions. At this stage, in my contention, he should have medical evidence under Section 62 of the Act, namely, two independent witnesses to say whether the prisoner is a psychopath or not. We should be prepared to learn from the Danes and, without any sense of vindictiveness, to agree that people who are certified by two independent witnesses to be psychopaths should be given an indeterminate sentence.
My next proposal is that medical evidence should be brought in every single

case involving violence of more than a certain degree. I am not suggesting that this should happen in the case of a Saturday night "pub" brawl, or anything like that. To take a case in point, I saw that a young man was sentenced to six months a couple of days ago because for the second time within a year he had made a completely unprovoked attack on a total stranger. He may be perfectly normal and merely a "bad hat," but at least medical evidence should have been given in open court in that type of case.
Since the only cure for the few psychopaths who can be cured seems to be that in the end they bark their shins so much against society that they learn from their ways, I am quite certain that we have to keep the psychopath under what might be called penal conditions. He has no other possibility of learning than in the rather hard way. This brings me to the whole question of penology, a vast question with which I cannot deal at great length. A number of people have said that if we put the psychopath inside for a long period of time that would cause difficulty because the prison service is already desperately overloaded, with 29,000 living in accommodation designed for 11,000. What do we propose to do about that?
I have some points on this about which I feel strongly. Even though I read in The Times this morning that prisoners in future are to earn up to 8s. a week, I consider that grossly and totally inadequate. We must organise prisons on a factory basis. It is always alleged, I believe quite unfairly, that this is not done owing to trade union hostility. Perhaps when we had 3 million unemployed that was fair enough, but I do not believe that this problem has been put to the trade unions since the war.
We have full employment and the unions have not objected to mental hospitals creating factory conditions in order to make life as normal as possible for people there. I cannot see how we can redeem a man unless we make him work and pay him the full rate for the job to enable him to recompense the victim. I should like to relieve the pressure by adopting the Continental system of suspended sentence in some cases. Quite a number of people, if they had a sentence hanging over their heads,


would not offend again. That would save this appalling overcrowding in prisons.
I am sorry as an English Member to run a hare on my own, but I am a West Highlander by birth and my home is on the Island of Mull. I should like to see the concept of the penal colony revived. I believe that we are far more inhumane than were our predecessors. It is true that in the last century we had Botany Bay to which we could send people, but I accept with considerable reluctance that it might be necessary occasionally to send a man to prison for forty-two years. I accept with a great deal less reluctance that preventive detention up to fourteen years may be necessary in some cases. On the basis of my own prison experience in Wilhemshaven, Hamburg and Lubeck—this was one of the occupational hazards of being a prisoner-ofwar and was not due to crimes—I am appalled at the prospect of a person being put behind bars for a long time.
It is alleged that in the Western Isles of Scotland, in which I am particularly interested in this respect, we should not be able to recruit staff to look after prisoners. My answer as a Western Highlander is not that people want to leave that lovely part of the world, but that they have to do so because employment is not provided there. The islands of Eigg, Rum, Muck, Canna and Scalpa have an acreage of 49,100 acres and being surrounded by sea there would be no possibility to escape from them. The population there in 1821 was 1,620 but now it is only 130. It seems to me that, both in humanity and as part of a general exercise to make the West Islands more viable, this would be well worthy of further investigation.
I should like to conclude on what is possibly a debating point, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me. His right hon. Friend has stood, manfully and quite rightly, on his right leg refusing the demands of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) that non-capital murderers should have a determinate sentence. I shall be interested to know whether it is possible for my hon. and learned Friend to stand on his left leg and to say that these far more dangerous people should not have an indeterminate sentence.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) for raising this very important subject of psychopaths, which is one of the thorniest problems with which we have to deal. At the outset he made some remarks about the confusion between sanctions and medical treatment in this field. That confusion is to some extent illustrated by the fact that we have the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health both on the Front Bench.
If I have drawn the right conclusion from the signs which I have detected, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will reply to the debate. With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think it is the wrong Minister, because I take the view that this is primarily a medical problem and not a penological problem. The Royal Commission on the law relating to mental illness and mental deficiency grasped this nettle and made very firm recommendations that psychopathic disorder should be treated as a form of mental disorder. It would have been all too easy for the Commission to sidestep the problem, because we all agree that it is extremely difficult. To some extent it did sidestep it by suggesting that it should not be defined, but the Government, in my view, in their wisdom, decided that it would be impossible to make provision for psychopathic disorder in a Statute without defining it, and in the circumstances they produced a pretty good definition, which was read by the hon. Member for Kemptown.
This indicates that the problem of the psychopath should be regarded as a medical and psychiatric problem. I think that the hon. Member himself to some extent fell into the confusion to which he drew attention because he kept talking about indeterminate sentences. One does not sentence a sick man to medical treatment. Nor do I think that medical treatment, or training, whatever it is called, should be regarded as appropriate to this type of offender within a prison setting.
It is unfortunate that, although it is nearly two years since the Mental Health Act was put on the Statute Book,


that is about as far as we have gone. There are no new provisions of which I am aware for treating psychopaths under the National Health Service. There are, of course, existing provisions; there are the special hospitals at Rainpton, Broad-moor and Moss-Side, to which I suppose the great majority of psychopaths who are subject to compulsory detention and treatment are being sent at present.
In this connection, I agree very strongly with the conclusions of the Minister's working party on the special hospitals, which indicated that these should be regarded as very much a last resort, appropriate only for those types of offender who cannot be accommodated in other hospitals—in special units with perhaps slightly less security precautions than these hospitals have.
The Working Party recommended that regional provision should be made for setting up psychopathic units. I advocated this many times during the discussions on the Mental Health Act. It is vital that there should be at least one purpose-built unit for treating psychopaths in every hospital region in the country. They need not be large. In fact, there is much to be said for them being of perhaps no greater capacity than 30 or 40 patients, at any rate in the early stages, but unless we set up such units we shall never learn anything more about this problem.
The problem has been set out for the first time by the definition in the Mental Health Act. For the first time we have an opportunity of categorising these people and studying them. As far as I can see, this opportunity is not yet being grasped. Will the Minister tell us how many regional boards in the country are planning any such provision of this kind, in accordance with the recommendations of the working party and, I think, in accordance with the wishes of the Minister of Health? In respect of the special hospitals. I hope that he will give a time when, like the old mental hospitals, they will have withered away because newer, better and more appropriate provisions for treating this type of patient will have been made. In the meantime, they include most of the psychopaths under detention.
I was very disturbed by the reply which I received yesterday from the Home Secretary to a Question about

those patients in the special hospitals who had applied for discharge to the mental health review tribunals. Some of us had a great struggle during the passage of the Mental Health Act to persuade the Government to allow access to those tribunals to those patients, many of whom will be psychopathic, but eventually the Government gave way, with one proviso. The proviso was that in those cases in which there is an order restricting discharge—in other words, those in which the responsibility for discharge rests on the shoulders of the Home Secretary and not on the medical staff—access to the tribunal would be granted but the tribunal's recommendations would be only advisory.
I asked the Home Secretary how many patients in Broadmoor—because I gather that there has been no application from Rampton and Moss-side—had applied to the tribunal. The answer was that so far 88 had applied, and in 84 of those eases the tribunal had not recommended discharge. In four cases, however, it had recommended discharge. This independent tribunal, set up under the Act, consists of lay elements, legal elements and psychiatric elements, but in two of the four cases the Home Secretary has rejected the advice of this independent tribunal and in the other two he has not yet made up his mind.
This is not good enough. When we set up machinery which in effect is appeal machinery, and appeals are allowed, using the jargon of the courts, in four out of the 88 cases, it is very disturbing to have the Home Secretary's veto on the successful appeal in the only two cases in which he has yet reached a conclusion.
I wish to raise one other point about the problem of treating psychopaths. Under construction at present is Grendon Underwood Prison, which was planned 25 years ago as a psychiatric prison. It was originally called the Hubert-East type of institution because of Norwood-East and Dr. Hubert's report on the appropriate methods of treating this kind of offender. Because of the war, the plans to build the hospital had to be shelved, and it was only about 18 months ago that the Home Secretary laid the foundation stone. But the prison is going ahead. As far as I understand, the original plans have not been modified to


a great extent. We are now going to have a psychiatric prison designed to the requirements of twenty-five years ago I do not think it is exaggerating matters to say that the Home Office does not know what it is going to do with it when it has got it. This prison was planned at a time when nobody thought that hospital treatment was appropriate for the psychopathic offender. Criminological ideas have changed since then. Indeed, psychiatric ideas have changed very much in twenty-five years.
It seems to me wholly inappropriate to have a hospital provision which we hope to see extended in a network all over the country for psychopaths, many of whom will come from the courts, who will be the subject of a hospital order, perhaps with an order restricting discharge, and alongside that a prison which is presumably going to be staffed—I would hope, at any rate, that it will be well staffed—with psychiatrists giving presumably the same kind of treatment within a prison setting for psychopathic offenders whose offences are exactly the same as or certainly parallel with both types of case.
I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to say something about the Government's intentions, or at least his right hon. Friend's intentions, about Grendon Underwood. I believe that it has not been thought out sufficiently closely or sufficiently recently. The best solution, if it is not too late to alter the design, would be to hand over Grendon Underwood to the Minister of Health and make it not a psychopathic prison but a psychopathic unit for the training and treatment of persons suffering from psychopathic disorders and who have been awarded a hospital order through the courts.
I sum up by saying that this confusion about the proper way to treat the psychopathic offender ought to be cleared up here and now. Are these offenders sick people who require treatment, who are susceptible to treatment and to that extent not wholly responsible for their action—that is what I believe—or are they to be treated, as they have been treated in the past, as tiresome offenders who are going to disrupt almost any institution in which they are detained and, therefore, should be sent

to prisons to undergo the ordinary prison regime plus such psychiatric assistance as may be available? I do not use the word "treatment", because there is very little psychiatric treatment in the prison service at the moment.
I believe that to send them to prison does no good at all. There is not much agreement about psychopaths and psychopaths, but the one thing on which almost everyone agrees is that prisons make them worse. It is on this note that I am afraid I must disagree with the hon. Member for Kemptown, who suggested indefinite sentences in prison. The appropriate course is that they should be treated and trained under medical supervision for as long as is necessary, and that is not the same thing as an indeterminate sentence. I hope that we shall have from the Joint Under-Secretary some clarity of the Government's thinking about what I believe we all agree is one of the most difficult social problems of our time.

Mr. David James: May I ask a question of the hon. Gentleman? I think that we have got into a difficulty of terminology. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Danes, who have a great deal of experience in this matter—I do not care whether one refers to a hospital or a prison—find it necessary to keep those people for an indeterminate period under maximum security in semi-penal conditions?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, I am aware of that. I am aware of the excellent work which has been done by the Danes and by the Dutch. They do inflict indeterminate sentences in the courts. But I think that concept is wholly alien to our own judicial system and I should not like to see it adopted here. To some extent, both countries are guilty of the same confusion that we have been discussing this morning.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. William Roots: No hon. Member can be left in any doubt from his postbag about the very serious disquiet which exists in the country not only on the question of the prevalence of violence generally but also on this aspect of the treatment of psychopaths. To some extent, I think that may be a matter of lack of knowledge and lack of publicity.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) that, in my view, the general legal system in this country is inappropriate to impose on a psychopath a long sentence, simply because he is a psychopath. In other words, if of two people who strike a man, one is sentenced to 18 months in prison and the other who had been a psychopath is sentenced to 20 years, that to my way of thinking is inappropriate.
Surely, at the moment there are in Section 60 of the Mental Health Act powers for a court to take into account medical evidence, I believe from two medical practitioners, and in effect to order the prisoner to receive appropriate hospital confinement and treatment. However, I think there was much in what my hon. Friend said, that Section 60 leaves the matter indeterminate as to who is to be responsible for calling the evidence and who is to be responsible for recognising the psychopath.
No doubt, my hon. Friend's Department and the prison authorities will be aware of the well-known case of Heath, to whom I would refer as a notorious criminal. But the vast majority of these cases are dealt with at quarter sessions or assizes, and I do not have to remind my hon. and learned Friend of the circumstances in Which those cases come forward. While the chairman of quarter sessions may have legal knowledge, he almost cetrainly does not have medical knowledge, and one can scarcely expect him to recognise a psychopath simply by looking at him in the dock or from the limited amount of evidence that the man gives.
For Section 60 to be not only effective but to be seen by the public to be effective, there need to be alterations or directions from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The better and more fruitful course is to be found in the powers contained, I believe, in Section 72 of the Mental Health Act under which the Home Secretary is able—if I may use a colloqualism—to "board" a prisoner who is found to be suffering from a specified mental illness and in respect of whom a hospital detention order is made, if my memory serves me correctly. It seems that this method of "boarding" is probably the right course because on that basis, if the case is properly reviewed from a psychiatric point

of view and if the person is recognised as a psychopath, he can be ordered to undergo hospital treatment whether it be of a penal nature or of a purely curative nature.
A large number of courts and certainly the general public are unaware that this power exists, and it would be of enormous assistance if my hon. and learned Friend could tell us the number of cases, first, that have been dealt with under Section 60 and, secondly, and to my mind more important, that have been dealt with under Section 72—that is, cases of "boarding."
It is vitally important, in the second instance, to distinguish between cases where "boarding" has been of a prisoner who has merely suffered a mental disturbance while in prison and is, therefore, sick, and the man who has been convicted of a psychopathic crime, has been sentenced and, while in prison, is recognised as being a psychopath and in need of special psychopathic treatment.
The House is thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for raising this matter, because it is right that the public should know that we are concerned about this problem. The public is concerned, and while it is one thing to say that it is a difficult problem—and there are differing points of view about the varying methods of solution—the public should get the impression that this House is deeply aware of these matters, some of which have resulted in much public disquiet.
For reasons of time, I have kept to the psychopathic aspect of the matter, but I must comment on the general side of crime, particularly crimes of violence. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the time is now more than ripe when either he or, perhaps, a senior member of the Judiciary, should make it clear that at this period in our history crimes of violence must be considered in a category of their own and that it must be known to the criminal classes that they will be so considered and so treated. We know, as do the criminal classes, that where an assault takes place on the police in the case of premises being entered—the criminal being armed with a loaded revolver—that is automatically considered in a category of its own. I am sure that beneficial results


have been produced as a result of this knowledge.
For example, if a youth or a gang of youths enter a café armed with a bicycle chain and an affray occurs and someone is hurt it should be known that that, in itself—the possession and use of a bicycle chain—will draw on the persons concerned probably a serious sentence, and certainly a very serious view on the part of the court and that if, in addition, there is robbery and a personal injury to someone is done, an additional sentence, on top of what would be given for the mere possession of a bicycle chain, will be meted out. If it were known that if one was found in an affray with a bicycle chain the courts would start with a three-year sentence and work from there, then that would have a salutary effect.
I do not believe that brutality, in terms of punishment, is the answer. One is always accused of that when one suggests a more serious penalty. But we must take a public stand that violence will be condemned by the courts.

11.54 a.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I should like to associate myself with the expressions of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) and say how glad I am that this matter has been raised. It is the point I emphasised in a speech I made on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill on 17th November. It is, further, a subject on which the House has so far not had an adequate reply from the Home Secretary, and I hope that the Minister who will today reply will enlighten hon. Members on this subject.
I am not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) who suggested that the wrong Minister will be replying to this debate today. We are, of course, talking about psychopathic patients—if one likes to call them that—and it puts them into a category of their own. After all, they have broken the 11th Commandment. They have been found out. They are before the courts and are, therefore, in the penal system. Having got into it I think that they should be taken out. However, having got in, it

is the responsibility of the Home Office to deal with them and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give an indication of what is being done in this respect.
We have had the report of the working party which was set up by the Minister of Health to inquire into the special hospitals and it has made extremely thoughtful and far-reaching recommendations. Coming into being is the new psychopathic prison at Grendon Underwood. While I am satisfied that proper consideration has been given to the possible dovetailing of these possible two systems, I should like the Minister to say what consultations he has had with the Minister of Health concerning the treatment of aggressive, intelligent psychopaths who come within the penal system. They are sentenced by the courts, but their treatment is fundamentally a medical problem. This is a small but important little knot in the whole problem of protecting the public.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) for introducing this important subject as the first of this series of Adjournment debates today. I imagine that the reason why the Under-Secretary of State is answering this debate, and not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, is that the duty of protecting the public is the paramount duty of the Home Secretary.
Hon. Members already stated, and rightly, that the public is becoming increasingly concerned about the considerable increase in the number of crimes of violence in Britain. That fact was underlined in the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police which was published the other day. But, on the general subject of crimes of violence, I believe that the best way to deal with them is to increase the certainty of detection. A large part of the recent increase in crimes of violence, and crime generally—including adolescent crime among delinquents—is due to the fact that so much of it goes undetected.
The fact that many criminals and adolescent irresponsibles are not caught is, I imagine, largely due to the inadequacy of the size of the police force.


I hope that everything will be done by the Home Secretary to encourage recruitment to the police force, because only by that means will it be possible to ensure a much higher percentage of crimes being detected In the vast majority of cases the only sensible way to deal with the criminal classes is some form of reformative treatment.
Hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), have dealt largely with the special cases of psychopaths. Having listened to the debate, I believe that we must now try to make some change in our present arrangements to deal with this limited class of persons who do not fall entirely within the category of requiring penological treatment but who are far more in need of medical treatment. It is important that we should realise that in this respect there ought not to be, and cannot be, any hard-and-fast line of division between the functions of the Home Office and those of the Ministry of Health.
Psychopaths call for special treatment, and it is obvious that prison treatment is inappropriate for recognised psychopaths. It may well be that in certain cases the intervention of the police and of the criminal law is necessary to ensure that these people are apprehended and that they obtain the requisite treatment, but the difficulty that society is in at the moment is that there appears to be this hard-and-fast division between the function of the Home Office to deal with criminals through the prison system and the functions of the Ministry of Health to provide medical treatment in those cases where, as a result of mental abnormality, persons are more likely to commit crimes than are others.
We all recognise that in recent years there has been a most satisfactory improvement in the degree of medical knowledge and skill in dealing with cases of mental disorder and abnormality and the country can justly pride itself on the very considerable progress made in recent years. I hope that we can now go a stage further and that, as a result of this debate, and of the presence of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, we shall be told that there will be much more administrative co-operation between her

Department and the Home Office in dealing with this class of person.
I do not know what the statistics are of those criminals who are wholly bad, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, as distinct from 'those who are mad, or partly mad, or suffering from some abnormality. It is probably a matter of degree. I suppose that we can isolate the criminal classes, and say that they are deliberately vicious and wicked, and that we can isolate another class and say that those in it commit crimes entirely because of mental abnormality that calls for medical and not penal treatment. I imagine, too, that there are cases in between, in which the actions result partly from one cause and partly from the other.
If, however, society is to be adequately protected, which is the function of the Home Office, and if these individuals who are suffering from mental disorders are to have the assistance from society to which they are entitled then, as the hon. Member and as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North have pointed out, some change in our present administrative arrangements is required. That seems to me to call for a different approach on the part of the courts, and a different approach on the part of the Home Office in the arrangements it makes in regard to the prisons, and particularly the special prisons, for persons suffering from mental disorders.
Personally, I like the suggestion that, wherever there is any reason to suppose that a crime has been committed because the prisoner is suffering from a mental disorder, there should be medical evidence, and that it should be the duty of the court to consider that medical evidence and to consider the appropriate treatment for that individual. In those cases, it is obviously not good enough to send the person to an ordinary prison, because that will have no reformative effect on his character and will do nothing to give him the medical psychiatric treatment he requires if he is to improve his conduct.
I realise that this will require a certain amount of expense, but I do not think that that matters. Expenditure in the medical hospital field and in the prison service has been stultified in recent years; it has not matched the increased State expenditure in other spheres of social


work. It is, therefore, high time that this problem should be dealt with, and I want to support the suggestion of my hon. Friend that this prison, designed some time ago as a psychiatric prison for psychopaths, should be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health.
It may well be that a number of experiments are required here, but what is quite evident to my mind—and it has arisen clearly in the speeches we have heard—is that a change is required in the attitude of the courts and of Departments in providing special facilities where psychopaths who have committed crimes and who, therefore, come before the courts—and, indeed, those who have not committed crimes and have not come before the courts—can get the medical treatment they require.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take to heart what has been said on both sides this morning, and will be able to give, if not today, at any rate subsequently, an assurance that reforms of the kind proposed on both sides of the Chamber will be carried out.

12.7 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) for raising the subject of the protection of the public, particularly against the psychopath. This is a very real problem, although it is only in recent years that the country and society have really done anything about it, or even become aware of it; so recent that I do not think it altogether fair to test or criticise the new arrangements on the very limited experience we have so far had.
I must at once say, although this is a real problem and one which worries the public enormously, it would be wrong to give the impression that it is of more than limited dimensions within the whole ambit of the criminal law. I do not think that there is evidence that a high proportion of the crimes of violence is committed by unstable persons who cannot be deterred from offending again by any of the penalties available to the courts.
Such evidence as there is suggests that most of these offences arise either out of brawls or family disputes, or are

committed by men who knowingly and deliberately resort to violence as a means of gaining their particular ends. Psychopaths are, no doubt, to be found among those who commit every kind of offence, but there is good reason to believe that the great majority of crimes, whether crimes of violence, or sexual crimes or crimes against property are not committed by psychopaths, even if that term is used in its widest and loosest sense.
Our general approach to the problem, and the reason why I am replying to this debate rather than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is, as was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), that our paramount consideration in dealing with these people, unfortunate though they are and needing treatment as they may do, is that the public must be protected. That must come first, even though in this difficult balance there is always a risk that someone may he injured. The protection of the public comes first, and my right hon. Friend adopts that policy throughout.
One of our difficulties is know how to distinguish that class of criminals who have been referred to as psychopaths. The definition in the Mental Health Act is as good as we can get, although it has been gravely criticised in some quarters as being too restrictive. It has been suggested that Joan of Arc, Napoleon and Lawrence of Arabia were psychopathic personalities. Lord Goddard, although in not so many words, recently said something to the effect that we are all psychopaths now.

Mr. Fletcher: Joan of Arc was schizophrenic.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: She may have shown signs of dementia praecox, but I do not wish to go into the diagnosis of Joan of Arc. The definition in its limited sense in the Act has, I think, commanded respect, but even within that limited definition there is the grave difficulty of identifying the individual psychopath.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown made a most interesting and provocative speech, but I think that the problem of identifying the psychopath is rather more difficult than he suggested. If


it is difficult to identify the psychopath, as I submit it is, a great deal of my hon. Friend's thesis falls to the ground, because it would be quite insufficient if, except on an absolute certainty of definition, one was to detain people indefinitely in the way that he suggested.
Although I do not wish to mention any of the names given by my hon. Friend, there is in many, if not all, of the cases he mentioned difference of opinion among medical people as to whether they were psychopaths. The psychopath is often a man of considerable intelligence and able to conceal his true condition for a long time. He is often an ingenious liar and may confuse the issue with plausible stories. On the other hand, there are people who commit apparently purposeless crimes of violence who do not exhibit the normal features of psychopathy. All these factors tend to make it difficult to distinguish the criminal from a prisoner who is simply wicked.
Until 31st October, 1960—this shows how recent our experience is—the criminal law provided only for the compulsory detention in mental hospitals of persons who were insane or mentally defective. No provision was made for psychopaths as such. The Mental Health Act, Which came into force only on 1st November, 1960, replaced the earlier legislation in this field and it provides for the compulsory detention in hospitals of persons suffering from any of four named categories of mental disorder, one of which is psychopathic disorder. I will not repeat the definition which was given by my hon. Friend.
Section 60 of the Act empowers the court to order the admission to hospital of a person suffering from such a mental disorder if the court is satisfied that he committed the criminal offence with which he is charged. Section 71 enables the Secretary of State to order the transfer to hospital of persons found insane on arraignment or guilty but insane, and Section 72 gives him similar powers in respect of prisoners under sentence and found to be suffering from mental disorder.
There has been a suggestion that these provisions are not properly applied. I beg leave to doubt that, once one concedes the difficulty, even after a long period of study, of recognising psychopathic disorder. After all, this was an

innovation of far-reaching importance and the application of these provisions is bound at first to be largely experimental. A start has, however, been made and we shall gain experience and profit from it as we go on.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) asked for figures showing how the Act was working. It has been in force for only nine months and it is making a real contribution to the problem. For the period of five months from the coming into force of the Act—that is, from November last year until the end of March, 1961—which is the latest period for which statistics are available, the number of persons dealt with by the courts under Section 60 as suffering from psychopathic disorder, either alone or in conjunction with some other form of mental disorder, was 50, of whom 40 were males and 10 females. During the same period, the number of persons removed to hospital under Section 71 and classified as suffering from psychopathic disorder either alone or in conjunction with some other form of mental disorder was five, of whom three were males and two females. The number of prisoners transferred under Section 72 was seven, of whom six were males and one female. That, of course, is only for the first five months of the operation of the Act. The figures may seem small, but they will undoubtedly increase as prison medical officers get more experience.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman happen to have the proportion in the first category for whom an order restricting discharge was made under Section 65 of the Act?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not have that information with me, but we will do our best to obtain it and let the hon. Member know.
We do not think that it would be right to widen the definition, certainly not yet. We must accept that there are offenders whose psychopathic tendencies are not covered by the existing definition. We must also accept that there is no sure way of identifying the small number of such offenders and distinguishing them from the much larger class of offenders who do not suffer from such a disability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown recognises that fact. He seeks to overcome the difficulty by providing for the detention for an indefinite period—I hope that I am not doing my hon. Friend an injustice—of all persons who commit offences at least as serious as grievous bodily harm with intent. The difficulty there—and this links up with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the ordinary forms of defence, or, for that matter, of attack, should not be available by means of cross-examination, including the production of counteracting and conflicting expert medical evidence—is that this would be such a large inroad into the liberty of the subject that it would not be tolerated by the public as such.
The particular offences would have to be specified. Assuming, however, that they included all offences against the person carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, which is the maximum for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, I estimate that something like an additional 2,000 persons would be ordered life sentences each year. This number would include, as we have seen, a great many who do not suffer from any mental disorder. It would also include many convicted of relatively minor offences which, although in theory could attract such high sentences, in fact attract a light sentence only. We do not think that this will work unless one can be quite sure at the outset who a psychopath is. I do not think that at the present stage of medical knowledge it is possible so to recognise a potential psychopath.
Courts have power to impose a life sentence at their discretion for some of the more serious offences. There have been cases in which a court has imposed a life sentence in the public interest, because the offender has appeared to be suffering from some mental disorder requiring him to be detained for an indefinite period and the court has considered it advisable to leave the Home Secretary to determine whether he may safely be released. The passing of a life sentence in such circumstances is rightly limited to the more exceptional cases where, as in the case of murder, when it is mandatory, the offence itself is a grave one and the threat to public safety is poten-

tially so serious that public opinion would support the deprivation of a man's liberty for a prolonged period, if necessary for life.
Before I leave the courts, I should mention two points regarding medical evidence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred. He suggested that the courts should have power to appoint medical experts to examine the accused and to give evidence at the trial—if my hon. Friend did not suggest it today, he has done so in the past—to avoid situations in which the defence touts for cranks and differences of opinion are expressed which tend to discredit the profession.
I think that this would tend to usurp the functions of the courts. The general public is always very loath to give the power of decision to experts. In the course of a very varied career at the Bar, I have noticed that experts invariably disagree, and I do not believe that medical experts are less offending in that respect than financial, ecclesiastical or any other experts. That may be one reason why the public very much dislikes the idea of the two sides not being able to bring conflicting expert evidence and of leaving the matter to a medical tribunal, rather than a lay tribunal.
Indeed, this was the finding in a similar case of the Royal Commission on capital punishment which did not accept this idea. The investigation of the mental condition of the inmates, including untried prisoners, is part of the prison medical officer's duty, and if, in any case, the medical officer has found that there is some abnormality in an offender's mental condition, of which the court should be made aware, he will volunteer this information, whether or not a report has been requested by the court. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South has said that in the lower courts there is not the facility in the case of grave offences, but there are more facilities than perhaps he gave us to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown also referred to the treatment of psychopaths in prison—those suffering from mental disorder of a kind or degree which does not make it appropriate to transfer them to hospitals under the Mental Health Act. The investigation of the mental condition of


prisoners is an important part of the duties of prison medical officers, but I entirely agree with him upon the consequences of leaving psychopaths in prison with ordinary prisoners, because it has a very bad effect, for the reasons which he gave and for others, on the ordinary prisoner.
Many prisoners suffering from some form of mental abnormality respond to treatment, guidance and supervision provided by the medical officers in their establishments. Others are transferred to those establishments where psychotherapeutic centres have been established, and, as hon. Members know, the Grendon Underwood construction is well advanced. It was criticised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North on the ground that it was out of date already, but I think his criticism did not embrace or take account of the fact that it is not only for psychopaths, but also for prisoners suffering from other forms of mental illness other than psychopathy. Research will form an important part in the life of the institution. It is hoped that light will be thrown on the causes of some of these difficult and intractable offenders, and we all wish the experiment well.
While on the subject of research, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked about the provision of centres by the regional hospital boards. I would refer him to the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on a Supply Day on 11th July, reported at c. 343 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since then, a circular has gone round urging on regional hospital boards the provision of such centres.
I think it would add a little colour, and certainly give more reality, if I were to give an example of what happens in regard to the difficulty of dealing with "irreconcilables". As hon. Members know, a wing of Brixton Prison was recently converted into a small self-contained wing for the accommodation of chronically violent prisoners and their observation by specially experienced medical officers. Hon. Members may be interested to hear of a recent case. A prisoner had an extremely bad record of violence against other prisoners and prison officers, totalling eleven offences in all, between October, 1958, and

November, 1960. As a result of a violent assault on a prison officer in November, 1959, the visiting committee at the prison awarded him twelve strokes of the birch, the sentence being confirmed by the Home Secretary and carried out.
In December, 1959, following another violent attack on a prison officer, the visiting committee awarded eighteen strokes of the birch, but the Home Secretary did not confirm the award. Shortly after this, the prisoner, who had been segregated, was transferred to Dartmoor. It was found necessary to keep him segregated for the twelve months that he remained at Dartmoor in order to protect members of the prison staff and other prisoners from physical injury by the prisoner. In February of this year, the prisoner was transferred to the new unit in Brixton Prison. As a result of observation there, he was later reported by two doctors to be suffering from psychopathic disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1959, and my right hon. Friend recently gave a direction for his transfer to Broadmoor Hospital for treatment. Two years ago, that could not or probably would not have happened, and it therefore shows the sort of progress we are making, may be, in a very extreme case, but there are other cases not so extreme where these orders have been made.
I am sorry if I have taken up too much time, though I have not dealt with all the points raised, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. I should like to have a long discussion with him on his proposal for prisons in remote islands, and I am quite sure that a lot of people would like to spend their lives, not perhaps as prison officers, nevertheless as inhabitants, of islands like Muck, Eigg and Rhum, which he visited, but it really is not practicable in the sense that the prison officers and their wives and families, as we have had experience at Dartmoor, want to be in touch with what is the ordinary urban civilisation of our times. They cannot be expected to, and indeed will not, go to the remote places, because they will be cut off from the main stream of life and from the other amenities of modern civilisation. There will be some who may like to go there, but I doubt if we could


get a sufficient number of prison officers willing to do so.
On the subject of turning prisons into factories, and that prisoners working there should be paid normal wages, in view of the increases in wages which I was able to announce in answer to a Question yesterday, and in view of other measures which we are determined to take to see that more and better work is done in prisons, I do not think I could hold out much hope of getting to the sort of standard which my hon. Friend wants. It would be quite wrong to pay prisoners full wages unless their work and output justifies it, and, unfortunately, for the present, overcrowding in prisons, the need for security, the shortage of staff and many other factors make it impracticable to bring prison industries up to the standard of efficiency which would provide an economic basis for paying full wages. It would be wrong to hold out any hope that in the near future we could do that, although with the principle which my hon. Friend has enunciated, and particularly with the belief in the therapeutic value of a long, good, hard and productive day's work, nobody would disagree.
I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has been here. She has listened most carefully to all those points on the medical side, and she has made a special note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who has taken such a particular interest in this matter. I hope that the House will think, as I certainly do, that this debate has been well worth while.

BANK OF AFRICA

12.30 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: On the Order Paper there is a Motion, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, which can be divided into two parts. The first part welcomes proposals for increasing African participation in the main banking houses and other financial institutions in the economy of Africa, and the other part refers to
a project for the establishment of a bank in which Africans as directors and shareholders will take the lead.
I want to address myself to the last part of the Motion.
The project, which is known as the "Project for an African Bank", is still in the formative stage. It emanated from African nationalist leaders, and, of course, it is subject to modifications when negotiations and arrangements proceed. As at present envisaged, the project is that a pilot bank should be created in Salisbury, that the capital should be some £250,000, and that the issued share capital should be provided, and if necessary must be provided at this stage, from European sources, but that half the share capital should be held, so to speak, on option, for Africans to subscribe when the project has succeeded. If, as is envisaged, early success should come to the bank and its banking operations, the proposal is that the shareholding should be more or less 50 per cent. European and 50 per cent. African.
It is proposed that the board should be divided between Europeans and Africans, with the chairman an African so that it will represent to the Africans an African bank. Necessarily at this stage, the know-how will be provided by Europeans. The project must not be confused with any idea of Africanising the personnel who run the bank. The bank will be training Africans to take over positions of responsibility, but that will probably take a considerable time, during which Europeans will exercise their know-how in running the bank.
At the present stage of the training and capabilities of the African personnel, there would undoubtedly be more reason for Africans to make their deposits in this bank than if the bank were completely African from top to bottom, and


that is recognised by the African personalities who have put forward the project.
To begin with, the bank would use its share capital and the deposits which it hopes to attract from Africans for discounting good bills of exchange and in general using its finance in a very conservative way. There is a parallel proposal that a similar type of bank should be established in Kenya, and the fact that these proposals have been made by the nationalist leaders and that this opportunity of a debate in the House has been secured have been widely welcomed in Kenya.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the hon. and learned Member with some care and I have seen the Motion on the Order Paper, but the Question before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn," and the hon. and learned Member will be aware of my difficulties. I see the Parliamentary Secretary upon the Front Bench, although he appears to be rather diffidently remote from the Dispatch Box at present. If the hon. and learned Member could explain to me where and how there is Ministerial responsibility for all this, I should be grateful to him.

Mr. Foster: Ministerial responsibility is established in this way. I submit that in respect of dependent territories the responsibility of the Government, through Ministers, is much wider than in the United Kingdom. Where there is something which is of benefit to the African people in those territories, the Government have a responsibility for creating a climate, if they approve of the project, which gives it a favourable wind, so to speak. They could give it publicity and the local instructions in small townships or villages could be such that the African bank would not meet with any unnecessary administrative difficulties. In addition, there is a responsibility on the new Department of Technical Co-operation. It was said that that Department would make available information as to where finance to assist in the territories could be found and how it could be obtained. If the Government view this project with any kind of approval, the Department of Technical Co-operation could help in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. I will listen to the hon. and learned Member further.

Mr. Foster: I am much obliged.
The bank, which will have this European know-how, will aim at attracting African deposits throughout the territory. One of the advantages which will accrue through this project is the indication that prominent Africans are anxious to adopt a European banking system. Some of their followers inevitably put forward wild schemes for expropriating everything that is European. We know that the African leaders do not share that extreme view and if this scheme for an African bank gets a favourable response and the capital required, the more extreme followers would be shown that the only way to economic progress and stability in Africa is through the adoption of European banking institutions.
I was saying that the project has received a great deal of publicity in Africa, and the fact that it has been debated today has also been greatly welcomed. I have a copy of the East African Standard for yesterday, Thursday, 3rd August, in which the headline is:
Kenya Plan for Bank of Africa".
It says that a branch may be open within the year. Reference is also made to my Motion, which is also welcomed.
It may be asked whether the existing banking institutions, mostly English banks, would not be confronted by competition which they would not welcome. It is undoubtedly the fact that existing banking institutions have been going ahead developing the African side, if we can call it that, of their banking operations. They have been opening branches further up-country and attracting African deposits, but the fact remains that many Africans have savings which they keep in their homes and do not entrust to banks. It has been accepted by many banking institutions in the City, to whom this project has been mentioned, that if those unfruitful deposits could be deposited in the bank in order to fructify for the Africans, it would be welcome to the banks of the territory as a whole.
This debate shows that the House recognises the importance of the project, and recognises that these African leaders


have produced a plan which is nonpolitical, in the sense that the bank is meant to attract a deposit from Africans and non-Africans equally. The only political element is that it is envisaged that there should be African directors and African shareholders. If it is successful, it is contemplated that in time Africans should take over many of the posts of responsibility for which there are not at the moment a sufficient number of trained Africans. In East Africa, the fact that this project has been put forward has already very much improved the climate of the attitude of the Africans who are politically conscious of the financial institutions which already exist.
Thanks to our policies and to the general economic upsurge in Africa, it is an undoubted fact that the standard of life of the Africans is rising. It is calculated that in the Central African Federation about £17 million to f18 million of African deposits exist in the existing institutions. There is more to come out from the homes of the Africans, and if the bank is well run it will undoubtedly help the economy of Africa.
If the Africans have a 50 per cent. shareholding, they will be very intent on the bank achieving the success which its sponsors hope it will. It is undoubtedly true, too, that the Africans will look on this as a test of their ability to come into the general financial system of the European and make a success of a bank which will be predominantly African in the sense that it will have at least 50 per cent. African shareholding, and in the end perhaps a majority of Africans on the board, and from the inception of the scheme an African chairman.
For those reasons I warmly commend this scheme to the House. I commend it on the grounds that this scheme has been thought out and composed by the African leaders. Mr. Chitepo may be said to be one of the originators of the scheme, and Mr. Kaunda has given his approval to it. Mr. Chitepo drafted perhaps the first memorandum when it was regarded as a scheme very much in the future. However, it appealed to the imagination of the Africans in Central Africa, and since then the project has assumed a much more concrete

form. Dr. Kiano also helped with the preparation of the Memorandum, and Mr. Gekundo and Mr. Nkomo have assisted with suggestions.
That is one of the reasons why I commend this project to the House for its approval and to the Government for their approbation. It shows that the Africans, by putting forward a project of some imagination, and one which can only be of benefit to the economies of the various countries, have assumed a responsible attitude and one which recognises that the European financial system of banking operations is necessary for the continued progress of the economies of these countries.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) in putting forward the important concept of a bank for Africa. I believe that the Government have a degree of responsibility both direct and indirect, and I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will be able to set the seal of general approval on this whole concept.
The purpose of the bank is both economic and political. It will undoubtedly encourage the African to invest his savings. If we get increased African investment in the rather difficult situation which exists in certain territories in East and Central Africa, we will obtain a greater degree of political stability, which in turn will attract further investment and so raise the standard of living of the people in the area.
Starting a bank which is 50 per cent. African will mean training a large number of Africans directly and associating an even greater number indirectly with the scheme. This will tend to bring before them the economic facts of life. Not long ago I was talking to one of the African political leaders in Northern Rhodesia. He was telling me of his ideas for improving the standard of living, the standard of education, and so on, in his country. I said, "Yes, it is all very well, but it will cost money and where will that come from?" His reply was, "Oh, that is easy. We will ask the Americans to open up more copper mines." He said that quite regardless of the fact that there had been a 10 per cent. cut-back in copper


development in the territory due to various international factors. I believe that this concept will increase awareness of the economic facts of life among many African people, and that it will bring the political stability which will be of importance in the difficult years ahead.
First, may I adduce some of the economic reasons why I support this concept? These have been ably covered by my hon. and learned Friend, so I will keep my remarks brief. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that this was a pilot scheme. It was intended to start it in Highfield, the African quarter of Salisbury, and presumably if it is successful it will be extended to Kenya, Northern Rhodesia, and other African territories. My hon. and learned Friend also pointed out that the idea was to encourage deposit banking, and particularly to encourage African co-operatives both in industry and agriculture.
In the memorandum submitted to Members of this House by the sponsors of the scheme, they point out that the average income of the Federation in 1959 was £28 per head of the African population, and about £540 per head for Europeans. I give no guarantee of the correctness of those figures, but I think it is certain that both those figures will rise, and obviously the African income will rise faster than the European. There will therefore be a big scope for African investment in this bank, and indeed in any other bank operating in these territories.
Again, the sponsors point out that their estimate of African moneys in deposit, in savings and in African businesses in Central Africa alone is about £15 million to £18 million. There is, therefore, certainly plenty of scope not only for the existing banks but for the new one.
My hon. and learned Friend said that the concept is that the new bank should be shared fifty-fifty between Europeans and Africans; that the directors should also be equally shared between each race, but that it should always have an African chairman. What particularly interested me in the memorandum which the protagonists of the scheme put forward was the way in which they continually stress the importance of a close relationship with the Commonwealth,

and the importance of efficiency and integrity.
They point out in one paragraph that the mere Africanisation of the staff of an international or British bank does not necessarily endear it to the African, because he feels that in the present state of education in Africa it may well lessen its efficiency. On the other hand, if a substantial proportion of the equity of a banking institution is Africanised the African shareholders will be determined that it shall be run on the soundest possible lines and conform to the highest code of administrative discipline and integrity, because they will have a personal stake in that bank. I understand that promises of financial help have come from countries such as Germany, Japan and America. I hope that the desire of the sponsors of the scheme to get real backing from Britain and the Commonwealth countries—backing not only to the extent of financial support but also in know-how and personnel training—will be fulfilled and that this debate will go some way towards publicising these views.
Finally, there is the question of competition with existing British, Commonwealth or international banks in the area. Hon. Members on this side of the House believe in competition, and with the growing amount of investment in Central and East Africa there is plenty of scope for competition, and, as I have said, this expansion of investment will encourage political stability.
It is to the political background that I want to address the rest of my remarks. I wish to make a number of very short quotations. I do this deliberately, because it is important for the House to understand the background to this project. The quotations I wish to put before the House are those made by Africans in Africa. They were made during a conference attended as observers by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for the Labour Party and by myself for the Conservative Party. This was the Third All-Africa People's Congress which took place in Cairo just before Easter. It was a conference of African political parties from independent and also dependent Africa.
The keynote was set by the Secretary-General, Mr. Abdoulaye Diallo from Guinea. I am now going a little beyond


the purely economic terms of the question, because I want to describe the background of the Conference and bring forward the economic arguments advanced against that background. In his opening speech the Secretary-General said:
Today there are two forces existing in the Congo; forces which represent the imperial interests, and forces which represent the interests of the Congolese people.
He went on to deal with the dangers of European bases and alliances and the danger, as he put it, of neo-colonialism. He advocated one trade union and one political party for the whole of Africa. What he said on the economic subject was this:
What has taken place in the Congo characterises in an obvious way the danger of neo-colonialism. The many attempts at the regrouping of influence in the ancient and new capitals is also obvious. Neo-colonialism can also be seen in several fields, in particular the economic field. As long as the old structures are not modified, domination will continue.
The feeling of the Conference was that the colonial nations were on their way out, but that neo-colonialism as exemplified by the American dollar was the new danger. In this connection the Secretary-General said:
As for economic development, we have already said that it must be carried out in the interests of the populations. The means of foreign and domestic communications, the means of production must be organised and orientated in that sense.
From those brief quotations the House should be able to appreciate the trend of the keynote speech which was certainly liable to the West.
I now want to make two or three brief quotations from African leaders from British Africa at that Conference, referring particularly to the economic aspect. One of the best speeches—because it was an economic and not so much a political one—was that delivered by Mr. James Gichuru, from Kenya. He is Vice-President of K.A.N.U., and he said:
After independence we face new and perhaps greater challenges, problems and dangers. The challenges are those presented by our age-old enemies: disease, poverty and ignorance, challenges that are still very much with us although they were supposed to have disappeared under the so-called 'civilising mission' of Europe. By the new dangers that face us today I mean the menace of neocolonialism operating mainly through stooge governments that control our economies—invisible and, therefore, more dangerous.

Later he amplified those remarks, and said:
Lest I be misunderstood let me make it clear that when I refer to economic imperialism I do not include the normal commerce of one country with another or disinterested aid without strings attached from any country.
It can be seen that the African leaders of British Africa are pleading for economic aid for their own bank and their own way of investment in their own country. They are asking for help from us, and are asking us to look at the problem not through British eyes but through African eyes. That point was emphasised by Mr. Tom Mboya, who said:
At the moment there are people who look at us with glasses on which is written pro-East or pro-West, anti-East or anti-West. Let those glasses be changed into an African looking-glass that will portray the African personality that will be recognised the moment an African is seen or the moment he pauses to speak.
In other words, we must look at the Bank of Africa from the eyes of Africa. I believe that this project will come off. I very much hope that this country will be fully associated with it, because if we do not support it, it will come off without our support.
There are dangers in this scheme—dangers that this finance may be used to support political and nationalistic moves. We must be clear about the dangers. As far as I recall, there were only three direct mentions of the Bank of Africa at the Conference. The longest and most direct—and in some ways perhaps the most politically dangerous—was made by Mr. Moton Malianga, Vice-President of the National Democratic Party of Southern Rhodesia. He said:
We have seen that imperialists in many respects have cooled down some of our leaders. All this has been traced to financial strings. With the establishment of a Bank of Africa, economic freedom and independence would eliminate the possible dangers of some of our leaders becoming economic prisoners. The Bank will also help young independent African States which have been dependent on imperialist banks, to ensure that the situation in the Congo, when the Belgians froze the banks, will not repeat itself.
That may be a quite legitimate point of view, but it emphasises the fact that if we do not help and offer financial aid and economic know-how this scheme could be used against the interests of the Commonwealth and those of Britain.


In this matter we should all work together. The resolutions emanating from this Conference were all short ones which advocated the setting up of a Bank of Africa, and I should like to see the Commonwealth countries make the start.
I hope that I have not wearied the House with too many quotations from this Conference, but it struck me as being an extremely important one, showing that Africa wants to work for itself, and that besides providing finance we must also help the Africans to work out these things in their own way. There is a strong feeling about the dangers of "neo-colonialism" in Africa which we generally find associated with the threat of the American dollar and used for political reasons by our political enemies.
But there is also a great wish among the Africans to follow British tradition, and the tradition of integrity of the City of London. There is a great wish that the City will help in providing know-how and financial assistance. I hope that when my hon. Friend speaks he will be able, so far as it is possible for him, to set the seal of Government approval on this concept of a Bank of Africa, so that it may go forward as a partnership, as envisaged by my hon. and learned Friend, with a 50 per cent. African and 50 per cent. European control, for the betterment of British territories in Africa and for the betterment of the Commonwealth as a whole.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I realise that a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in this debate and that the time for it is limited. Therefore, I shall be brief.
By raising this very imaginative suggestion at this time, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) has done a real service both to the cause of African advancement and to modern Colonial Office policy under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give official endorsement and blessing to my hon. and learned Friend's idea when he comes to reply.
When I was in Central Africa last year I encountered again and again in different forms the basic idea which my hon. and learned Friend's Motion embodies. I found it among many of the progressive, enlightened younger businessmen in great cities like Salisbury, and also among thinking African nationalist leaders, which I had not really expected. Probably, when we come to think of it, that is not surprising because naturally they are as anxious as we are to see the expansion of the economies of their own territories for which very soon they will themselves be responsible.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, the sum of money needed to start the African bank project is so small that it would be rather tragic if men like Herbert Chitepo, Joshua Nkomo and Kenneth Kaunda had to look elsewhere for this limited sum of money to get the project started. If we want, as we do, the East and Central African countries to remain in the Commonwealth after they achieve independence, then it is projects like this, combining European and African capital and under European and African direction and management, which help enormously to create an atmosphere of good will between the races and to encourage the spirit of partnership between the races to which so many people pay lip-service but to which, in practice, relatively few people actively subscribe.
I agree very much with my hon. and learned Friend that African economic standards are advancing, certainly in every decade and probably in every year. I am sure that there is a very large potential for African investment in a Bank of Africa once it is clearly seen to be both a successful and efficient concern and to be serving Africans and identified with African interests. It must be both. It must be run efficiently and it must be directed, at any rate in part, by Africans, in the interests of Africans. That is why I believe that it is important that the management as well as the capital should be shared by people of both races and responsible to shareholders of both races. It is important gradually further to Africanise the management as soon as, but not, of course, before, that can be done without any loss of efficiency.
The financial and banking institutions in the City of London are not being asked to run a very great risk. They are being asked to be pioneers and adventurers, but on so small a scale compared with the enormous sums of money with which they deal, in something which may well turn out to be a very good investment, that it would be the greatest pity if they missed this opportunity. If they are dubious about the risk and doubtful about investing money in this part of Africa at this time owing to the political climate, the best encouragement to them to do so is the very fact that it is the leaders of the nationalist African parties who are sponsoring the project. The fact that they want an African bank of this kind, financed as to 50 per cent. by Europeans and 50 per cent. by their own people, is evidence of the sense of responsibility of a number of these men. Just as politically a federation stands a better chance if it grows up from the people, as the idea is growing in East Africa, than if it is imposed by the United Kingdom or the Europeans, as in Central Africa, so I believe that in the economic sphere a project like this has a much better prospect of success if it is suggested and wanted by the African leaders. We shall make the greatest mistake if, because of lack of imagination or excess of caution, we in Britain fail to give the lead which they have invited us to give.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I wish him every success when, as I imagine and hope with the blessing and support of the whole House, he brings it before those interests in the City who, at very small risk to themselves, could bring it swiftly to fruition for the benefit of this part of Africa and of both races who live there.

Mr. Peter Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said, quite rightly, that the financial institutions of the City of London are not being asked to take very much risk in supporting this project. I go further and say that the institutions of the City of London would be taking a very great risk if they did not support this project. We can well imagine the

leaders of the newly emerging African territories being very unfriendly and suspicious towards the institutions of the City if they do not co-operate enthusiastically in this sort of project.
The theme of the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) is one of great importance which should be considered with some urgency. Unless in the very near future we are able to train African personnel to play their full part in the financial institutions of their countries we can well imagine those countries becoming very sympathetic towards the financial entanglements of the Communist world.
I should like much more to be done in training African personnel in the know-how of running financial institutions. As someone who spends his business life in the City of London, I am rather disappointed at the efforts which have so far been made to train African personnel in the financial institutions of the City. The number of Africans undergoing training in the offices of insurance companies and banking houses in the City is far too small. If the City is to continue to enjoy the insurance and banking transactions of these very important areas, without which the economies of the Western world would collapse, it must make a much more positive attempt to train and educate these people. I should like to see Africans being trained on the floor of institutions like Lloyds and the Stock Exchange, but I never do. Yet many of the companies associated with these institutions are doing a great deal of rewarding business with the countries concerned.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consult those educational institutions connected with professions such as the Chartered Insurance Institute and the Institute of Bankers, which do a very important job in training people in this country, to enable Africans to take the examinations of those organisations. For example, I can see no reason why one of the contributions of these major financial industries should not be to ensure that the correspondence courses of those institutions are provided free for Africans who wish to undertake them. In financial terms, this would be a relatively small contribution, but, in


terms of enabling Africans to acquire the necessary know-how and to learn the principles of these financial industries, it would be a very important and worthwhile contribution. There is no reason why the powerful banking and insurance industries of this country should not financially support the establishment of insurance colleges and banking colleges in the emerging territories of Africa on the lines of those which exist in this country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to support the important theme raised by my hon. and learned Friend and that he will do all in his power to influence the institutions of this country to play their important part in training Africans to take their place in these Western institutions on which we are so dependent.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I wish to echo the congratulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-with (Mr. J. Foster) on his initiative in introducing the Motion before the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take note of the fact that the project has had very wide support from both sides of the House.
I am very sorry indeed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation is not on the Front Bench today, because I think that if ever there was a "natural" for this new Ministry this is it. I was particularly struck in the Second Reading debate by the very great interest which the House took in the matter and by the occasional strictures from the benches opposite as to whether or not this new Ministry ought not to be responsible for finding finance for suitable enterprises overseas. This, to my mind, is one of the most suitable kinds of enterprise that the new Ministry could consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) made an appeal to the banks and financial institutions to do more as a deliberate policy to help to train Africans in the field of finance. I echo that appeal very much, but, to my mind, this could be done much more effectively by the new Department of Technical Co-operation because there are immense resources in this field, and,

in fact, in so many different fields. Therefore, it is perfectly natural that in the prospectus they seem to appeal again and again to the Commonwealth for help in this project. That is entirely natural because the whole of the knowledge and background of all the Africans who engage in trade and commerce and in any kind of technical job has come from United Kingdom sources.
I feel that this project for an African bank is of particular significance at this time. Speaker after speaker, including my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), has referred to the importance of such a project as a stabiliser. We have probably the best banking system in the world in our older Commonwealth countries. It is noteworthy that in the 1929–31 slump some 2,000 American banks went bankrupt. Not a single bank or insurance company in the British Commonwealth went bankrupt in that period. The importance of this project as a stabiliser has, as I have said, been emphasised. We all know that next to owning money owing money is a strong inducement to responsibility. Those of us who have had a very wide experience of banks know that sometimes we owe an awful lot more to the banks than just money.
This is one of the most fundamental institutions which every evolving country must have. The whole history of the early days of the British Commonwealth is that after a certain stage someone started a bank. Sometimes in those early days it was successful and sometimes it was not. It is perfectly true that this particular service is one of the things most necessary to an expanding economy, and I am very glad to read the memorandum and to hear my hon. Friend emphasise the fact that the politicians in Africa will leave the bank strictly alone and allow it to develop on its own lines.
Very briefly, I wish to call attention to something which happened during the Committee stage of the Department of Technical Co-operation Bill. I was very attracted to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that the new Department should not confine its activities to technical aid but should also give guidance and advice on how to raise money. It seems to me that the functions of the


new Department, which is to help people to get things started, provide it with a unique opportunity for such assistance. If the new Department is willing to provide technical aid this should not make it too difficult for the money to be raised for the new project.
In reply to the hon. Member for Northfield during the Committee stage, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to miss the point. He said:
One question that was not raised by hon. Members opposite but which I include for the sake of completeness is whether the new Department should provide information not only about the sources of finance available in this country but about what other countries are doing in the way of technical assistance and where it can best be sought. That is a point that we would like to examine further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 543.]
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will examine it further and that we shall proceed with this magnificent idea and do everything we can to influence the appropriate sources of finance. It is not a question of setting up new institutions and machinery but of making use of the existing resources in the form of technical knowledge which the City of London already has in greater measure than any other country in the world at the present time.
I conclude by asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to make it quite clear to the new Department of Technical Co-operation that the House wants it to look into the matter and to tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich whether or not it is prepared to offer to the sponsors of this new bank the technical aid and machinery which they are bound to require and also that the new Department should give all the assistance it can to provide the necessary finance either from this country or, perhaps, from institutions elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I wish to add my support to this very worth-while proposal and look to the active support of Her Majesty's Government in getting the Bank of Africa started. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) said, one of the very best things that we have sent out from this country to the

Commonwealth has been our banking system. But it is also true, and rather unfortunate, that very often the banks in countries in which there are many illiterate and ignorant people get a sinister name, because a man without much learning finds it hard to understand how the banks get their money. Quite often, there is a stupid prejudice against the banks which we open up in different parts of the world. This is unfortunate because, I believe, these banks have done a thoroughly good job.
It is essential that we should encourage the Africans to start the idea of banking by adopting our system of banking institutions. If it is found that there is any dog-in-the-manger trying to prevent this, the Government should take action to quash those activities as soon as possible. In Africa, which is an expanding country, there is ample room for more banks to be set up. I think that our own banks in Africa can do with a bit of competition so as to encourage them to push their branches further. I know of a town which could be considerably expanded if the bank could be persuaded to open another branch, even if it were an uneconomic branch. I think that one of the important aspects is to see that an effort is made to support not only the idea of this bank, but also the British banks which are already working in Africa.
I believe that some people—not necessarily hon. Members of this House, but perhaps some people in the City of London—may doubt the possibility of raising money in Africa. But that possibility is not quite so fantastic as it may seem. We often hear statistics regarding the income of the African which is stated in Southern Rhodesia to be £28 a month and in Tanganyika £16. I once carried out a survey and found that in one district the figure was under £10. But these figures are absolutely meaningless by the standards we set in this country. To an African they represent spending money.
It is hard to illustrate this clearly, but it is worth reminding the House that it is usual in Africa to pay monthly because Africans like a lot of money in one lump; not like the British working man who may find it impossible to make the money which he receives weekly last beyond the Wednesday or the Thursday following pay-day. The Africans


carry a surprisingly large amount of money in their pockets. One may note from thefts which take place on the railways that the victims may be Africans who had as much as £100 or £200 which was being carried round in a wooden box when it was stolen. As I say, the money is there in surprising quantities.
I was connected with one small scheme for the selling of the maze crop in a village. The sale was carried out by co-operation in bulk and amounted to 100 tons. The money for the maize came to over £1,500, which went to that village. Had there been proper banking facilities available, instead of the Post Office Savings Banks which are common but which are not sufficient, a great deal of that money would have gone to swell the assets of the country. The standard of living of the African is so low that most of the money he makes represents spending money, and I have no doubt that if such a bank as is envisaged could get going with the right sort of support, it would prove a great success.
One aspect which appeals to me about such a project is that it would link the African territories together right from Southern Rhodesia to Kenya, and perhaps West Africa also would join in. Anything which has the effect of linking these Commonwealth countries together is to be recommended. There is nothing which the emergent people of Africa want more than status and the respect of other people. I feel that a successful banking system, backed by the City of London and by the Government here, would give the people of Africa the sort of status which they desire.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) for raising this subject. It has been interesting to listen, as I have been listening with a perfectly open mind—not so far having studied carefully the documents on the subject—to all that has been said by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members on this side of the House approach the subject of banking generally in a manner which is rather different from that of hon. Members opposite.
Our approach leads us more than does theirs to an emphasis on the necessity for public control over banking opera-

tions through the law, and to the desirability of having a substantial measure of public ownership in banking operations either through nationally owned institutions or through co-operatively owned institutions. But that does not alter the basic fact that there will, of course, always be the need for short-term banking operations, the sort of job which the commercial banks undertake, raising their money from depositors. I am distinguishing here between the commercial bank operating short-term credit provisions and the investment bank which is concerned with long-term investment, and what I have to say will not be related to the long-term investment bank.
There is a need to finance the movement of commodities. Goods are carried over the oceans and for long distances on land by rail. While these operations go on there is ample need—and it is sensible to provide it—for capital to finance the holding of commodities during transport and other commercial operations. We recognise the need for short-term banking operations and appreciate particularly the great importance of the provision of short-term capital in countries like those of Africa where it is necessary to provide the means to tide the farmer over during the long period between the sowing of his crop and the sale of it.
These are necessary institutions, and all over Africa there are commercial banking organisations run on the joint stock method which provide capital. They raise their finance from depositors. This is unexceptionable. It is necessary and it must continue. Whatever kind of society these emergent African territories may eventually decide to operate they will have to have within their economy provision for short-term finance of this kind. Whatever degree of control they may eventually decide to operate they will have to consider what kind of short-term capital provision they intend to set up.
Undoubtedly it is true as has already been said, that Europeans particularly possess a great deal of the know-how about the conduct of such operations. There is a technique and a know-how which has to be learnt. One cannot just walk into a bank and start to run it. One must be trained in the operation.


There are many Europeans in Africa, and no doubt also some Asians, who possess this technique, but there are far too few Africans who have had the opportunity to learn it. I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—who speaks no doubt with a greater knowledge than I of the banks in the City of London—in regretting that more training was not given by these banks to African employees in their branches so that they might understand more of how this system works; and even how the great financial nexus in the City of London operates as the headquarters of this vast ramification of banking systems throughout the world. I hope that commercial banks will think about this and pay some attention to what the hon. Member said, even though they may attach little importance to what I say, because if what he said is true, they should be doing something on those lines on a larger scale than at present.
I do not think that anyone has suggested that commercial banks already operating in Africa should cease their operations. The suggestion is that their interest might be roused by this debate in the general idea of bringing Africans more closely into participating in the work of the banks. I welcome the interesting suggestion which has been advanced regarding a bank for Africa and I think that it needs careful and sympathetic examination. I find it particularly interesting, because it is associated with the names of leading and highly qualified Africans.
The names which have been mentioned include those of Mr. Chitepo, Mr. Malianga and Mr. Kaunda. I was particularly interested in the project because I saw the name of Dr. Kiano, whom I happen to know fairly well. He is an economist and was a lecturer at the Nairobi college before he became a Minister; and, of course, he is a political leader of considerable status in Kenya. The fact that such men are associated with this idea makes it particularly valuable and one which deserves careful consideration.
I agree with much that has been said about the interest that ought to be shown in this project by the new Secretary for Technical Co-operation. I said in the debate on the Bill to establish that new

Department that I hoped that it would be a forward-thinking Department and one that would be interested in new ideas, would inspire them and follow them up. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will take the opportunity of saying that he will consult his right hon. Friend about this idea.
The Colonial Office can be directly concerned with this matter, I imagine, only at a later stage. For the time being, it certainly seems to be one which the new Secretary for Technical Co-operation might explore and his Department is well staffed now with persons who have experience of Africa—particularly its Director-General—so that between them they ought to be able to help this idea along.
I am not in any way committing myself, nor I think is anyone else, to a detailed endorsement of the plan which has been put forward, but I am saying that it is interesting, it has the sponsorship which we can recognise as both responsible and well-informed, and it deals with the provision of services which will be necessary whatever form of society the Africans eventually decide to establish in their independent territories. We have listened with great interest to what has been said, and I feel confident that the Government will do what they can towards forwarding this idea.

1.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I am sure that we shall all join in thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) for having raised this subject. We have had a well-informed, swift and important debate.
This matters falls into two parts: to encourage British companies and financial institutions to make an even wider stake in the development of Africa, and then turns to a specific project for an African bank which is to have its centre in Salisbury. My remarks, as I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will understand, must be general. Not only is the main proposal put forward outside the territorial scope of my Department, but I think it is only proper that Ministers of the Crown should speak in general terms and not particularise on individual commercial projects unless, of course, there is a direct Government participation.
In general terms, may I say at once that I welcome, and I am sure that the House does, the general spirit and objective of the speeches which have been made this afternoon. In the few remarks that I propose to address to the House, I think that it would be appropriate to deal with four main topics—the general economic conditions in East and Central Africa; the need for further capital; the action already taken by British financial institutions; and the desirability of further African participation.
I think that it is interesting for those who are having doubts or are rumoured to be having doubts about the economic future of these two areas that, in spite of political uncertainty and some loss of confidence and the fall in raw material prices, purely from an economic point of view a very considerable advance has been made in these territories since 1957. In Central Africa, there has been an increase in copper production, in Nyasaland a rise in tea exports from 20 million lb. in 1958 to nearly 24 million lb. in 1960. There has been an increase in the production of cotton in Nyasaland from 3·6 million lb. in 1957–58 to well over 8 million lb. in 1959–60.
Turning to East Africa, although in the five years between 1954 and 1959 there was a very heavy deterioration in the terms of trade in this area, Kenya deteriorating by 19 per cent., Tanganyika by 10 per cent. and Uganda by over 30 per cent., the average real income per head is estimated to have risen in Kenya by nearly 40 per cent., in Tanganyika by about 20 per cent. and even in Uganda, where there has been a catastrophic fall in coffee prices, it has risen very slightly The export figures also have continued and are continuing to rise.
Last year exports from Tanganyika rose by nearly £9 million to a total of some £56 million in that year. Even in Kenya, despite the drought, the worst possibly in recorded memory, and the loss of confidence that undoubtedly has taken place in part of the private sector, but only in part of it, development expenditure there this year will probably be the highest ever recorded.
I mention these facts because I think that they are vital to show to people in this country that in purely economic terms the rate of expansion, even in those difficult years, has been great and rapid. If it is to be continued, we must

look for new capital resources in every field, through Government savings, whether they be in this country or Government savings in the local territories, from Government institutions, the Post Office Savings Bank and other local institutions, or overseas banking resources, and, of course, there are the indigenous savings of the local communities.
Here I am sure that a well-run, sound African bank would have a part of great importance to play, in no way conflicting with the already well-established British and other banks which have helped in such an excellent way to "father", if I may use the word, the expansion we have seen over the last few years. These resources are necessary and more resources are necessary, not merely for the continuation of existing public or private programmes but to meet the aspirations of the peoples of those territories.
I believe that the character of African nationalism is changing. It is ceasing to be the simple chauvinistic, emotional and, if I may say so, economically purposeless nationalism which distinguished that movement so often in 19th Century Europe, and not so very far from here. African nationalism, whether it be white or black, is under pressure not merely to produce independence but also a standard of living and of education compatible with modern social aspirations.
Africa needs money far beyond what it itself can generate. To put about the ideas which some people may have thought of at the Cairo Conference with this foolish talk of neo-colonialism or the equally foolish talk of rivalry, which comes from our own people, between African and European institutions, is to throw away the substance of advance for the shadow of political promotion. I think that over the years ahead there will be room for growth provided we can achieve political stability—room for growth in which many sorts of financial institutions can participate.
It is worth while for a moment to turn to the kind of help already given by British financial institutions. Even here there is a limit. I welcome very much the new interest of West European and American bankers in the development of East and Central Africa. There is the example, which I think an excellent one, of the expansion of existing British and


Commonwealth banks in East and Central Africa. There has been a threefold expansion in the number of branches over the last ten years. We should remember that those have not been easy years, although sometimes the difficulties have been exaggerated by people not resident in those countries. It is still remarkable that in ten years the number of branches has been more than trebled.
The scope of enterprise in Kenya and East Africa generally is shown in that on 31st March this year in Kenya loans outstanding to agriculture and industry by the two overseas banks with their headquarters in London amounted to £11·3 million. In Tanganyika the amount was £5·3 million and in Uganda it was Over £8 million. Their total advances in East Africa were no less than £69 million. In addition, these banks are catering for more long-term capital needs—here I do not want to cross swords with the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), on purely doctrinal grounds—in the development corporations they have set up apart from ordinary banking services. In one case investment and loans already outstanding in East Africa total £4 million. In addition, there are large development sums invested by building and insurance companies.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is of great merit and value. Training and Africanisation for the banks in East Africa is taking place and it is also taking place in Central Africa. Contractors of British banks have sought to bring people from the African territories back here. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point the hon. Member made about the Department for Technical Co-operation. On the training side there may be scope for the Government to endeavour to be of assistance.
There is, however, a tremendous demand in every field of advance not merely in banking, but in education, Government services, the Forces and all these developing institutions. The demand for trained African manpower is colossal and overwhelming. It is worth while looking to see if we can be of some assistance in that sphere, Africanisation in itself does not wholly

meet the aspirations of those whose activities and interests my hon. and learned Friend has this afternoon so eloquently described. We should welcome any progress stemming from African initiative as a valuable contribution to the general economic health of the territories with which my right hon. Friend and I are concerned. It may be that in the richly variegated economic pattern of Africa there is scope for development along the lines indicated by the speeches made in this debate.
I am sure that what those going into the African bank, or whatever institution it may be, want to find is not the old ways of established banks but new lines of business. The model we have to look at is the Bank of America, which is the biggest commercial bank in the world, or one of the biggest. Its progress flows from the backing of the small immigrant, especially of Italian origin, going out to the new lands of California and so on at the end of the nineteenth century. One of my hon. Friends spoke of the difficulties of American banking operations in the catastrophes of the twenty-nines and the thirties. It is important that in this developing field new institutions should look for new ranges of activity rather than the old ranges which are already catered for.
I am sure that the enthusiasm we have seen this afternoon is of great importance, but I am also sure that any scheme put forward should be initially of a modest and sound sort. No banking system has ever sprung into being entirely armed without a degree of training and expertise and a sound basis. Although we should like to see an indigenous banking system develop on traditionally sound lines and catering for the special needs and circumstances of each territory, any attempt to force the pace would undoubtedly do more harm than good, as experience, alas, has shown elsewhere.
I am sure that the general aspirations put forward this afternoon will be of real benefit. I trust that all the ideas which have been suggested here and in Africa will be soundly based. This is an expanding field for every form of economic institution. In this I am sure the Africans will take their rightful and proper part.

SOCIAL SCIENCES (RESEARCH COUNCIL)

1.46 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: In rising to draw attention to the need for a social sciences research council, I should first declare my interest. I am married to a well-known social psychologist.
In the years since the war there has been an increasing interest in Parliament, as well as an increasing responsibility by the Government, in scientific research in all fields. Most of us regret that far too much of this research has been devoted to defence. Whether as a by-product of that or on account of the Government's increasing support of science for civil purposes, there have been great advances in our country, as in the rest of the world, in the physical sciences and in technology.
I think most of us would agree that, in spite of or perhaps because of this, there has been far too little money spent on what the poet Pope called:
The proper study of mankind
which is man. That study is the field of the social sciences. Here we start right away with a semantic difficulty, because some dislike the title for a number of reasons. That is partly because it is thought of as consisting only of sociology or, on the other hand, the sort of work done by departments which train social workers and do little or no research. So in this country there has grown up the use of the name "Human Sciences" because they cover the activities of individual men in learning and the use of skills as well as man's interactions with his fellows both economically and socially. The objection to this is that it could be taken to include other sciences such as biology which is rightly included in the medical sciences.
In the United States they call these studies by an equally unsatisfactory name, "Behavioural Sciences". Unsatisfactory as that title is, I intend to refer to these studies as social sciences. Whatever we call them, we mean studies concerned with man's behaviour both as an individual and in society, the institutions he builds, and the results of changes in those institutions on his behaviour. The sciences generally recognised as dealing

with these problems include—in alphabetical order, so that there shall be no accusation of bias—anthropology, criminology, demography, economics, educational research, psychology and sociology. Some of these titles are not very satisfactory because they frequently overlap, both in their methods and in the areas of their studies, and each has a number of branches. Anthropology covers the study of primitive societies; social anthropology which deals with both primitive and modern societies; archaeology and anthropometrics, which consist of the study of man and his changes through the ages, as demonstrated by measurement of the parts of the body and the physiognomy. Sociology includes urban, rural and industrial; psychology includes clinical, educational, experimental, occupational and social.
In the many problems with which these sciences deal, often a number, these specialties must be employed together in combined research teams. It may be that these sciences have not so far developed many laws of a degree of precision capable of forecasting events as accurately as laws which have been developed in the natural sciences, but in recent years very great advances have been made in the methods of research in these sciences, perhaps particularly in the United States, where they are increasingly being used in administration and in assisting the determination of policy.
Even in this country there is a growing realisation of their value and to some extent, although I regret to say to far too little an extent, there is a growing realisation of it in the Government service. The Government have the Social Survey, started during the war as the War-time Social Survey, which has done a number of useful ad hoc jobs. These include consumer expenditure, the supply and use of scientific manpower, the organisation of hospital nursing work and so on.
The Service Departments use social science research in problems connected with selection and training, the problem of morale and the problem of leadership, for example. We have the newly-established research department, of quite reasonable size, in the Home Office which is starting to make a study of probationers. The Home Office also


supports by grant other work; for instance, P.E.P. for the study of the social and human needs of the families of prisoners.
But I regret to say that most Departments use little or no social science research whatever. It was a most extraordinary thing that we introduced and passed through the House a major Act, the Mental Health Act, changing the whole of the administration of mental health in this country and of our mental hospitals, and with the intention of changing our whole attitude towards the treatment of mental illness and the communal attitudes towards it, without any research being conducted at all, particularly into the problem of the communal care of the mentally sick and the effect on their families of those who are discharged from mental hospitals.
A Department which one would have thought would conduct a great deal of social science research, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, certainly employs social scientists but, as far as I know, does no research whatever, either for the very necessary purpose of town planning or for studying the relationship of families to housing and the housing problems which families have. These are problems which are very susceptible to the reesarch methods of the social scientist.
Perhaps most surprising of all is the fact that in the Ministry of Education practically no research is done at all. The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee recently submitted to the Minister of Science—the Parliamentary Secretary's noble Friend—a memorandum on this very important subject which points out that the total amount spent on empirical research on education in Great Britain is less than £125,000 annually, or about 0·014 per cent. of the annual expenditure on education. The Committee points out that most university research in education in this country is carried out part-time either by staff members or by students for higher degrees, the majority of whom are practising teachers will full-time jobs. There are only ten research fellowships throughout the country devoted to empirical research in education. Most of the research carried out by teachers and local education authorities is robbed of its principal value because

it does not enjoy the advantage of skilled advice on such matters as experiment, design, test construction and statistical analysis. With the rapid expansion of education in this country, and particularly of the new forms and new institutions of higher education, the need for research is increasing.
In industry we have the growing problems of changing technology and the related problem of attitudes to work and of retraining people from jobs which are rendered obsolete. We have the whole problem of the relation between the industrial structure of a firm or its organisation and its technology.
It was interesting to read in the Dictator—I mean the Director; that was a slip, but perhaps it was not irrelevant to what I am about to say: it was interesting to read in the Director this month that Dr. V. L. Allen, Lecturer in Industrial Economics at Leeds University, recommended the setting up of an institute to study industrial behaviour. He says that relatively little useful research has been done on the subject, and he draws attention to the out-datedness of many negotiating procedures and industrial relation procedures in industry.
On race relations, a good deal of research has been done, and perhaps what is more needed than research is the application of it. Nevertheless, this is a field in which further research will be needed, and a field which is becoming increasingly important in this country. In economics the Government have been converted to the idea that planning might be of some value, but so far very little research has been done, as far as I know, on the techniques of planning, and much more is undoubtedly needed.
I think, therefore, that the time has come to reconsider the proposal for a social sciences research council or a human sciences research council which was last considered by the Clapham Committee in 1946. At that time, although they thought that the time was not ripe to set up such a body, they recognised the value of the work which was done by the social scientists. I quote from paragraph 3 of its Report:
It is doubtful whether, even at the present day, the great practical value of knowledge in these various fields is generally appreciated.


It is a platitude that modern industrial communities rest on a knowledge of the subject matter of the natural sciences. It should be also a platitude that their smooth running and balance rest upon a knowledge of the subject matter of the social sciences.
More recently, in another place, Lord Adrian, himself a great natural scientist, supported the plea made by Lord Taylor for a social sciences research council. Over ten years ago Lord Adrian, speaking to the British Association, said,
Social science can tell us dispassionately what is happening in our society.… With modern techniques of social fact-finding and measuring, social science may well be the most important scientific development of the century.
That statement by a natural scientist is, I think, sufficient to convince the doubters of the value of the work which the social scientist does, but at present, such Government support as is given to the social sciences is very much divided. D.S.I.R. last year made seven grants totalling £40,000. It does a little work on its own at Warren Springs. The Medical Research Council has a number of units, for example the Applied Psychology Research Unit at Cambridge; and the Industrial Psychology Research Unit and the Unit for Experimental Investigation of Behaviour, both at University College, London.
But apart from the support given by the Home Office in criminology, as far as I know that is the only support given to the social sciences, and the amount in money involved is very small indeed. It is true that useful work is done by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social and Economic Research, which was recommended by the Clapham Committee, but it has no funds and it is concerned only with stimulating research in the universities, ensuring that material in Government Departments is available for research workers and that there is adequate co-operation between Government Departments and the universities.
The argument used in the past against such a body was based on the relative scarcity of active research groups, but the new universities which are to be established, the growing interest of the colleges of advanced technology in the social sciences and the development of many other new institutions have changed all this. Among these institutions we

now have the National Federation for Educational Research, the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge, the Research Unit at the Institute of Education (London), the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, the Institute of Community Studies and several others. These bodies exist, but most of them exist on a shoestring and they lack any co-ordination.
Research groups exist also in the universities and the Ministry of Education has encouraged staffs at technical colleges and teacher training colleges to engage in research, but they do not have the resources required for long-term research that is necessary in this field often by the study of very large samples. The members of these staffs moistly lack training in research methods, and here we are involved in a vicious circle, but the fact that the staffs lack training in research methods is not an argument for turning down the plea for a social sciences research council.
Without research grants it will not be possible to develop training in research methods. Such training is particularly necessary for the growing number of students who are now taking first degrees in such subjects as psychology and sociology. In order to be able to train in research methods, they need to take part in teams under senior research workers who receive adequate grants for the purpose. This is one of the things with which a social sciences research council would concern itself. Others include the support of research projects, the initiation of research, integration of the social sciences and the application of scientific thought and research to current problems. At the present time the social sciences are treated as peripheral interests of minor importance by D.S.I.R. and the Medical Research Council.
The other day, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Council of D.S.I.R. is reviewing the support given by the Council and the desirability of a separate body. Can the Parliamentary Secretary today give us any further news and say when he is likely to receive this Report and when he will make an announcement about it? Also could he


say whether all the learned societies and institutions interested in the subject are being consulted?
I know that there are some, and probably particularly among us politicians, who fear that the social scientists are claiming to make the decisions that should be made by the policy-makers in accordance with their principles and their values. I do not think any social scientists have ever claimed that, nor is it their ambition. It is true that no social scientist, any more than any other human being, can be completely objective, but, as I say, it is not their purpose or ambition to take over the job of the policy-makers. All they hope to do is to increase our knowledge of human behaviour so as to enable us to take decisions which are based more on a real objective understanding of the facts of the situation and the likely effects of our actions, than on mere hunches. Most of the time this will be done by the study of actual situations, and the results can be of immediate assistance to those who have to make policy decisions.
One of the advantages of the establishment of a social sciences research council would be that it would encourage social scientists in the study of these problems of current policy and not to believe that the path to respectability lies through the ivory tower. I hope this afternoon that we shall hear something more encouraging from the Parliamentary Secretary than we have heard in the past. There is no doubt that with the increasing problems that our country is facing, we need a great deal more assistance in understanding what will be the likely effect of policy changes, of technical changes and of administrative action on people, and to this I have no doubt the social scientist can make a really valuable contribution.

2.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) for raising this subject today when we are able to spend more time on it than would be possible in a normal Adjournment debate. His hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who I know would have liked to have been present today, raised this subject in our debate on 10th July.
I regret that there was not time for me on that occasion to deal with this very wide subject.
The last time that there was a review of our national provision for social and economic research was, as the hon. Member himself said, in 1946 under the so-called Clapham Committee. This Committee was very scathing indeed about the volume of such research going on at that time and it expressed great concern at the small number of qualified research workers available. The hon. Member himself mentioned that one of the reasons why this Committee did not recommend the establishment of a social sciences research council was the fear that existing research workers might be turned into administrators.
The Clapham Committee suggested that what was needed in 1946 was more work at the universities. It felt that the establishment of a research council at that time might well hinder this, while the difficulty of choosing between competing programmes in the state of knowledge which was then available would have been a task of great difficulty. We should be grateful to the Clapham Committee because it had the effect of stimulating research into the social sciences. As a result of the Clapham Committee's Report, the University Grants Committee gave earmarked grants for the social sciences between 1947 and 1952 at a steadily increasing rate.
As a result, however, of a change in policy, the University Grants Committee stopped giving earmarked grants for these and other subjects after 1957. Of course, the Committee has general responsibilities for the development of the universities in accordance with the national interest, and we all agree that the national interest demands due importance being given to the social sciences.
Which studies should fall under this heading I do not think one can precisely define. The hon. Member gave his list in alphabetical order. The Clapham Committee thought that all would agree that the social and economic sciences—it covered both—should include anthropology, sociology and social psychology, political science, demography and social statistics as well as economics, economic history and economic


statistics, which might well not be germane to our discussion today. The Committee also added that there were certain branches of medical statistics and law which were commonly considered to come into this field.
It will, therefore, be seen that my noble Friend has only a Departmental interest in some, and possibly not even in the majority, of these subjects. He is, however, responsible, as the hon. Gentleman said, for the grants which are given by the research councils in this field and I think I should, therefore, begin by giving the House some indication of the volume of work at present being carried on under their encouragement.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research gives grants and awards which at present total some £114,000. The figure of £40,000 to which the hon. Member referred covers grants to universities and colleges of advanced technology only. The Department has a special committee whose job it is to recommend such grants and awards at universities, technical colleges and research institutions, as well as to recommend work to be done by the research stations of the Department In addition, the Industrial Grants Committee of the Department has given a five-year grant to the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, depending upon the amount of money that the Institute itself is able to raise for this purpose. A list of the investigations which are supported by the Human Sciences Committee of the Department has been issued and I will be pleased to send any hon. Members who wish a copy of this list. As must be expected from the Committee's own terms of reference, all these awards have a relationship to industry.
However, they cover a wide field. For example, at the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology research is being financed into the social factors which affect relationships and individual performance in factories. The hon. Member mentioned industrial relations. In the university colleges at Durham there is research going on into worker-management relations in four north-eastern industries of differing techniques. At the Brunel College a subject studied is that of the subjective nature of judgments made in the inspection and quality con-

trol of manufactured goods, which I am sure we all agree is vital for our export effort.
At Leicester University study is being undertaken into the problems raised by the employment of married women in hosiery factories, and at Oxford University research is going on into plant-operating skills in relation to automation. These examples—and they are, of course, only a few of the examples—show that a wide variety of research work is being financed by the D.S.I.R. into those aspects of sociology and psychology which affect the industrial population.
We must also, in this context, consider the dissemination of the results of this research. Conferences to interest industry in the results of this kind of social science research have included the Ergonomics Conference in September, 1960, of which the full proceedings have now been published, and a series of meetings has been organised to introduce these topics to the research associations. A series of small booklets has also been published to aid the practical application in industry of the results of D.S.I.R. research.
A considerable amount of research also takes place at the Department's own laboratories and costs about £60,000 a year. At Warren Springs research is concentrated on ergonomics, such as the design and use of key boards, as well as a study, in conjunction with Manchester University, of secondary modern school leavers.
At the Building Research Station studies are being made into the design and provision of flats for old people and into the design of offices and hospitals. The Road Research Laboratory is continually studying the personal characteristics of road users in relation to their behaviour on the road, such as the effect of alcohol on performance and of the age and experience of motor cyclists in relation to the accident rate. The National Physical Laboratory is also studying at least three aspects of social science research; namely, motor vehicle noise, the effect of the light in a room upon colour rendering, and readers for blind people.
In the research associations there are flourishing human science and ergonomic sections in the British Iron and Steel Research Association and the


British Boot and Shoe and Allied Trades Research Association. I hope that other research associations will find it possible to do research in these fields.
Now I come to the Medical Research Council which is often thought to be mainly concerned with the cure of diseases. This is not true. It is equally, if not more, concerned with the prevention of disease and the maintenance of normal health and full human efficiency. Since its earliest days, the Council has regarded as being its concern research on psychology and environmental factors in relation to safety, and on the comfort and efficiency of workers in industry and other members of the population. The influences of social factors on health and sickness, on the physique and reproductive efficiency of women, on the occurrence, continuance and outcome of mental illness, as well as of climate and working conditions are all subjects of current research.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton referred to research into the effects of domiciliary treatment on those suffering from mental illnesses and also on those who must live with them in their homes. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is aware of Graylingwell Hospital in Chichester, in which the Medical Research Council's unit has a programme which includes the evaluation of a community mental health service to determine the social and clinical factors which favour the admission of patients to hospital and those which favour patients receiving treatment at home. The unit there is studying the effects on the family of caring for a mentally ill member. This year the Medical Research Council is spending about £250,000 in this field, both at its own research units and through grants for specialised research undertaken in the universities.
We now have the D.S.I.R. and the M.R.C. as the major grant-giving bodies. There is also, of course, the University Grants Committee although, as I have said, it does not now give earmarked grants for particular purposes. The amount of work in the social sciences must, therefore, depend to a large degree upon the importance which is attached to this work within the universities and the extent of their resources.
The position is also complicated because at very few universities are there first-degree courses in sociology as such, though, of course, many universities have courses in psychology and economics. In addition, these courses do not always agree upon the fields of study to be included. It is not easy, therefore, in many cases, to attract post-graduate students to remain at the university to pursue research.
There are many differences between the social sciences and the natural sciences, such as physics—where it can be stated that the solution of an advanced problem depends upon work already done. The raw material for the social sciences is human beings in society. The information has, therefore, to be collected not in a laboratory but among people at work and play.
Among the end-users of the research are, of course, industry and the medical profession, but they also include a large number of Government Departments. For instance, the Home Office spends a great deal of money in research into a wide variety of subjects, including criminology and penology, and if hon. Members would like to see a list of those researches which are supported by the Home Office, they will find them in the Written Answers given by the Minister of State at the Home Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) on 13th April this year.
Other Departments also finance studies which include those on perception and reaction to extreme environmental conditions and, in addition, grants are made by certain local education authorities. It is a vital thing for Government Departments dealing with human beings at work or play to be interested in the social sciences and also to commission research, the results of which the Departments need. How much of this should be done by centralised bodies and how much within the Departments concerned is a problem of great difficulty.
The hon. Member for Edmonton referred to the Social Survey of the Central Office of Information. This work, in general, has fallen so far into three main sections; firstly, inquiries on behalf of Government economists and statisticians with a special interest in economic development, secondly, inquiries into health and social problems,


and thirdly, inquiries into the development of techniques for supplementing and completing existing official statistics in many fields and, in particular, for studying operational problems of public services. The operational expenditure, exclusive of staff costs, included in the Estimates for the C.O.I. in the current year is just under £129,000. One can see, if one looks at the investigations made by the Social Survey, that they cover a wide field and that the number of them has been increasing since the war.
In making this review of social sciences research at present being undertaken I certainly should not forget the considerable support which has been given by the major charitable foundations. These have, however, recently tended to direct an increasing proportion of their support in this field to work in under-developed countries and, therefore, I do not think that we can necessarily expect these foundations to play so large a part in contributing funds in the future as they have done in the past.
That leads me to the future. A considerable body of opinion has suggested—and, among others, the hon. Member for Edmonton and the hon. Member for Lanark—that we should have a social sciences research council, but I suggest that there are equally strong arguments that this is possibly not the ideal form of support that should be given at the present time. The work to be done is so varied, and the end-users so different in character, that the amount of work at present carried out at the universities does not appear to many people to be such as to make a research council the ideal solution.
I think, however, that we can all agree that we must have a much greater degree of study in the universities and the colleges of advanced technology. Some would argue that we need more undergraduate courses to lead to the first degree; others, that these sciences are essentially suitable for post-graduate work. I hope, therefore, that those interested in strengthening the study of social sciences in the universities and colleges of advanced technology will give evidence to the Committee which is at present sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins. I am sure that the Committee's views on this subject

will be most valuable, as they will be on other subjects that come under its survey.
Secondly, as I stated in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark on 18th July—an answer to which the hon. Member for Edmonton referred—the Council of the D.S.I.R. is reviewing the support given by the Department in this sphere, and is considering whether there is a need to alter the present organisation for giving these studies encouragement and support.
My noble Friend expects to receive the Council's views in the autumn, and I am sure that the House will agree that he must await its advice. I am authorised, however, by my noble Friend to emphasise to the House his very great interest in these sciences. He will certainly very carefully read the views expressed by the hon. Member for Edmonton, and those of any other hon. Members who may speak in the few minutes that will remain after I sit down.
Like the hon. Member, by noble Friend believes that more work should be done in the universities and elsewhere on these sciences. I can assure the House that he will continue to give these problems the study and attention which the continued interest of this House has shown that hon. Members think they deserve, and that his continuing study will be directed to the end of strengthening the social sciences in future.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply is much as I expected; that those responsible will look at this and praise what has been done, but will not at present commit themselves to establishing a research council. The hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) is to be congratulated on initiating a debate on a subject that was rather obscured in the major science debate when my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) raised the matter.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this subject on an Adjournment debate, and that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken such care to give him a very considered reply. There is no


party issue involved here, and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the care that he has given to his reply, and the detailed information he has given to the House.
I think that a research council ought to be created, and it may be that after their studies and their consideration of the information provided by the D.S.I.R., and after receiving the recommendations of the Robbins Committee, the Government will act. I detect a sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. I feel that the Minister himself is favourably inclined to the development of social science and its application, and that when the time comes he will probably look with favour on the creation of a council of the type proposed. In that sense, I hope that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not an easy matter. My hon. Friend has certain affinities, and a certain bias, but I can speak only for myself. Even when I was a young graduate at Durham—and I am glad that Durham has been mentioned—taking my diploma in education, I thought how inexact ways the application of psychology to education. I still think that. I hope that in his anxiety to project sociology, my hon. Friend will not be too dogmatic. In the application of psychology to our educational system there is still a great variety of viewpoints. In the main field of psychology we cannot be doctrinaire, as my hon. Friend reminded me by his Freudian slip. When we think of Adler and Jung and the great giants who stride across the world of human thought, we can appreciate that we cannot possibly be dogmatic. In our desire to advocate social science there is always the danger of creating a mystique, and I often detect an unscientific approach in the enthusiasm of those who wish to push this too much.
On the other hand, I do not want to appear to discourage my hon. Friend. I think that we should have a social research council, and I was glad that he stressed the importance of the memorandum on educational research of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, which has been submitted to the

Minister. It is true, as my hon. Friend has said, that we are not spending enough on proper educational research. The sum of £125,000 which he quoted as being spent annually on empirical research is totally inadequate.
The Government themselves would benefit by research of this type. Some of the problems have not been mentioned, such as the effect of the 11-plus examination. We have never yet had a proper Government-sponsored study of that. I hold strong views about that examination. I believe it to be an anachronism —but it is there, and it should be carefully studied. The Ministry of Education should employ a sociologist to do some important work on this subject; instead, we have to rely on individuals, who have done considerable service.
Here is an opportunity, because this is a very important educational issue. It arouses antagonisms on both sides, and now and again we may have political arguments intruding into the field of education. Would it not be better to have a research organisation which, although relying on Government grants, would be relatively objective and independent?
I see that we have with us the hon. Member for one of the London constituencies, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). I should like the Minister of Education to initiate a survey on the success or lack of success of the very fine experiment in London education—the comprehensive schools. Without arguing for or against them, I believe strongly in them. Because of that, I should like to see undertaken a proper survey of how these schools are fitting into the different London environments, such as Putney, where I now live, and that part of South-West London, and other areas. We should then discover how those schools are meeting educational needs, and how they are developing the abilities of each child. Whether or not the abilities and talents of a boy or girl who has failed the 11-plus examination are developed in this new environment is a matter of great importance.
In the end, Governments and Ministers must make decisions on objective advice. It will not be the advice of the politicians, although we may give advice; it will not


be purely the advice of administrators in the Ministry of Education, because they are so often biased by the nature of the schools of thought to which they belong. In the end, the advice must be dependent on skilled objective surveys made by sociologists and social scientists, whose main object is to sift evidence and submit it to the appropriate authorities.
There is a wonderful opportunity in education for much more research and the collection of far more information. One of the strong arguments put forward by my hon. Friend is that even from the point of view of Government policy, even from the viewpoint of providing information which would determine the action of a Minister in deciding whether to encourage this type of education, organisation or structure, and whether to give advice to, say, the London County Council, all this is dependent in the end upon impartial surveys made by people who are trained to be impartial. That is the argument which has been put forward.
That is true also in other fields. I should like to see a careful survey of, for example, university education, embracing the place of students, the nature of the courses, whether university education is too long and whether we are wasting our abilities and our resources, not simply at Oxford and Cambridge, but at Durham, Bristol and all the other institutions of advanced education. After a proper social survey, we might find that we could speed up the existing processes and save valuable resources, not only financial, but also intellectual, which probably are being wasted by the existing structure.
I read an article the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who did an extremely interesting piece in the Sunday Pictorial, or a good paper of that type for which he writes. He pointed out how we are wasting our effort in higher education.
During the war, the Government had to rethink this whole matter and the training of people for the Army. I am glad that reference has been made today to what the War Office did during the war. It is true that people had to be brought in to ensure that suitable methods were used for the training of men required for the forces. In the

end, psychologists and social scientists were brought in.
In the Army, I always had a prejudice against psychologists. We called them "trick cyclists," and it may well be that they were, but in the medical field they did an important job in looking after men who had been affected by shell-shock and the like. Despite that, in the sphere of constructive government, where we need social surveys, where we need to examine the behaviour of groups of people and also to understand individual reactions, it is essential to have sociologists and the people who have been described today.
In that direction we might cover a wide range of activities which have been listed by my hon. Friend and by the Parliamentary Secretary, embracing anthropology, economics and different fields of sociology, demonology and the like. The time has come when the creation of a social research council might lead to stimulus which would enable the universities to push ahead. Inevitably, in a policy in that direction which encouraged social research, the universities would play the most important part. Therefore, we should consider both undergraduate and postgraduate training.
I am generally biased against providing sociology as such at an undergraduate level. It would be far better if students had interests in another faculty, either from the scientific or an arts viewpoint, taking a special course in sociology later in the postgraduate stage. I know that others disagree. Nevertheless, I would hope that a research council would encourage universities to speed up and develop more facilities for training, whether in the undergraduate or the postgraduate field. Whatever side we are on, we can only say that we want more research and more teaching in our universities, and we want it to be applied.
I assert once more my hope that the Government will come to the conclusion that we need this research council. The need has been stressed in an admirable article written by Lord Taylor in that excellent magazine the New Scientist, of 11th February, 1960. In a powerful argument, Lord Taylor quotes Lord Adrian, an extract from whose address has been quoted today. The article also


quotes Lord Beveridge, describing him, as we all agree he is, as one of our greatest social scientists, who said in his Bowie memorial lecture:
Social science is the field of knowledge on whose successful cultivation the future of human happiness depends. It is perhaps more important than any other thing that men could do today.
He goes on to say:
We might think of social science as 'science with the people brought in'.
We can all accept that.
We need accurate field observation groups and group behaviour studies in a wide range of human activity in industry, covering the whole sphere mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. We need detailed socio-clinical studies and surveys like the Census, all of which help to improve our knowledge of human behaviour in society. If by increasing and improving this research we can in the end affect Government policies, we could all agree on the wisdom of this.
In other words, if we are to have wise government and proper Ministerial action backing up wise governmental policies, those policies in the end must inevitably be affected by the information which will be supplied to the Executive by the organisations which collect it. Therefore, all we are asking today is that the Government will encourage the creation of an army of sociologists working under a research council who will be able to supply detailed information which will enable the Government in the end to come to wise decisions on matters which often are non-political.

ANTI-DUMPING (FOODSTUFFS)

2.37 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this subject this afternoon. When I applied for this debate, I did not know the attitude the Government would take towards negotiations with the Common Market. Their decision, which was reached last night, to open negotiations with the Common Market throws all forms of agricultural support very much into the melting pot and, for that reason, necessitates alteration of some of the things which otherwise I should have said today.
One of the reasons why I supported the Government last night was that, having studied the trends of imports over recent months and their effect on the deficiency payments scheme, I have become extremely doubtful how much longer we could carry on as we are doing now. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated about a fortnight ago in the economic debate and in his statement that he would be taking a critical look at the agricultural support system and subsidies in the next Price Review.
I am glad to see sitting on the Front Bench today my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I much appreciate his presence today to keep a watching brief on the agricultural implications of this debate. He will know what was meant when the Chancellor said that he would take a careful, critical look at agricultural subsidies in the Price Review next February.
There is no doubt that the dumping which has occurred this year has very largely contributed to any increase in the subsidy bill, the results of which will be shown in the White Paper on prices in the agricultural industry at the next Price Review.
Our present agricultural policy stems from about 1954, when we had a change from controlled prices to deficiency payments in a free market, and, as a farmer, I remember well at that time my own indignation that any change should be made, and certainly that a change of this nature should be made. I think that reflected pretty accurately the views


of a good many farmers. No farmer likes a change in his marketing arrangements, and I have never liked the system of deficiency payments. I must be quite frank about that. I would be prepared to see other modifications and replacements of the minimum price structure which would involve some form of import control. Apart from the excessive dumping of foodstuffs recently, which has thwarted the system, deficiency payments do not always result in cheap food for the consumer, and do not necessarily make for efficient marketing by the farmer either. Of course, and this is what we are now discussing, they can cost the Exchequer a great deal of money.
For these reasons, I should welcome a rethinking of our agricultural policy, and I am convinced that import controls can only be accomplished within the framework of a trading group such as the Common Market. The pressures exerted upon us, if we remain independent, to take cheap imports, both to provide cheap food to keep the cost of living down and to enable more exports to be made, and to be able to compete, would make it impossible for this country independently to take action to restrict, or alternatively to continue, the present policy. I believe, for this reason, that we are safer as an agricultural industry inside the Common Market than we would be outside.
It would, perhaps, be convenient at this stage to look at the present position and to take the commodities which are affected in turn. The first and most important is barley. The background to this crop is that as a result of Government incentives over the last few years, we have reached a point where we are almost self-supporting in this commodity. This year, because of adverse weather conditions in the autumn, when very little wheat was drilled, there is a bigger acreage, although we do not know the exact figure yet, than ever before, and thus we are enabled this year to be completely self-supporting in that commodity.
In the six months up to 30th June, 1960, barley imports from countries other than the Commonwealth or the United States—and those from the United States were almost negligible—were only 940 tons. In the first six months of 1961,

we have imported 393,420 tons, according to the latest figures which are available. To put it in mild terms, this is a most fantastic increase. Commonwealth shipments for the same period have dropped from 405,282 tons to 255,438 tons, and this conceals a big increase in Australian imports and a very large drop in Canadian imports. The total imports for the first six months are nearly equal to the whole of the imports in 1960. This is a truly ridiculous situation, when we think of the fact that we shall be self-supporting, or self-supporting to a far greater degree, this year than ever before in our agricultural history, for barley, and yet in the first six months of this year we have already imported within very little of the total imports for last year.
This started to worry the National Farmers' Union as long ago as last October, and the N.F.U. wrote to the Minister of Agriculture at that time and told him that it was worried about the possibility of the dumping of Russian barley. It asked the Minister to request the Board of Trade to obtain the necessary data on prices from the Soviet Union, but it was not until early January that the N.F.U. was told that the information was not available. However, the position continued to deteriorate, and on 19th June an application was submitted on the facts available, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade then moved very promptly and made an announcement about the barley situation on 7th July.
In the announcement, he stated that no more Russian barley would be sold here at under £20 per ton, and that French barley would not be coming in at all. He further said that since the Australian season was at an end, there was not much to worry about there. He said at the time that negotiations were continuing, and I am now wondering if my hon. Friend who is to reply will be able to say anything more about that today. Can he tell us anything about the talks which the N.F.U. had throughout the winter on the subject of barley imports? I wonder also whether he can give us some idea how much barley—although it has not yet been imported into this country—has been contracted for and will be coming in over the next few months.
I wish now to refer briefly to the other two commodities which are causing us trouble. The first one is Polish eggs, and that subject reflects an attitude about which we ought to be able to do something in future years. The trade in Polish eggs is a seasonal business. The Poles always send eggs here in April, May and June, because it coincides, presumably, with their flush of eggs in Poland. They have come to expect that they would be able to dump their surplus eggs on our market. This year, however, because they have got away with it until recently, they started the process a bit earlier, and at the end of March the Egg Marketing Board received information from trade sources in Poland that there were to be substantially increased shipments to the United Kingdom.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument about eggs. I am all for cheap eggs, from Poland or elsewhere. How would he relate his argument about eggs in the flush season to the Common Market?

Mr. Prior: I was about to refer to this. If we went into the Common Market, one advantage from the agricultural point of view would be that we would not take these eggs from Poland, because one of the principles of the Common Market is that it will create round its common frontier protective barriers against cheap imports.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman admits, then, from my constituents' point of view, that it is possible that they will pay more for eggs? Eggs and bacon will be dearer?

Mr. Prior: Not necessarily, but, in fact, if we allow dumped products to come in that will depress the market price, so that one could argue from that point of view that the consumer will pay more, but it is my experience as a whole that, in the case of eggs—I must answer the hon. Gentleman's question here—the consumer would prefer to buy British eggs, which are a good deal fresher, and because a lot of the Polish eggs which come in are knocked out of the shell and frozen or dried.

Mr. Griffiths: They will be dearer?

Mr. Prior: It is possible, in this case, that they will be dearer. I do not think anyone would deny that if dumping is going on it must depress the market price. Indeed, it would be an incredible position if it did not.
The eggs came in in April and May and, of course, depressed the market and thereby increased the Exchequer contribution. Although discussions were taking place with the Board of Trade, Polish eggs continued to arrive here. It was only several weeks later, about the end of April, that the Board of Trade was able to agree terms with the Polish authorities to cut down the number of eggs being imported, but by that time the Polish seasonal flush of egg production was already over, and this was an example of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. What we want to do is to try to ensure that next year and in ensuing years we stop this process before it gets under way.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is something disreputable about my constituents in Manchester having reasonably priced eggs? Is he saying that they ought to pay more for their breakfast?

Mr. Prior: There is a great deal of difference between a reasonable price and the price of an egg dumped on the market. For example, in Poland eggs sell for the equivalent of 6s. per dozen, but here they sell for 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d. a dozen. I do not think that the constituents of the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) want to pay a larger subsidy to the British farmer to protect his legitimate interest, nor does anyone in this country want to take an unnecessary advantage of one section of the community. I do not believe that the people of Manchester mind paying 3d. for a British egg if they know that they can get British eggs all the year through. What they object to is paying 1½d. for the Polish eggs in the months of April, May and June, and 9d. or 10d. for a British egg for the rest of the year. The argument that we must have cheap food at any price in this country is as outdated as some other policies put forward by the Opposition.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am not putting forward any policy—

Mr. Antony Buck: Back to form.

Mr. Jay: —but to be fair to the British consumers, presumably they are not compelled to buy Polish eggs for 1½d. and can buy English eggs at a higher price if they prefer.

Mr. Prior: No, because the extra eggs coming on to the market are bound to depress the price of British eggs and they prefer to buy British eggs. Some Polish eggs are bought in the ordinary way, but the majority are taken out of the shell and used either as frozen eggs or as dried egg. As a result of the Polish exports in April and May, the British Egg Marketing Board had to take out of the consumer market and out of shell an almost equivalent amount of British eggs for use as frozen eggs, which strikes me as a nonsensical position.
Milk powder is another source of contention in the farming industry at the moment. Milk powder is dumped in this country by a number of countries, including France, Belgium and Holland. Holland, for example, is subsidising its milk powder to the extent of between 8s. and 22s. a cwt. France subsidises it at about 80s. a cwt. and Belgium at between 94s. and 101s. Those countries are dumping milk powder in this country with the result that our own production has fallen considerably, again reflecting on the prosperity of British agriculture and to some extent on the liability of the Exchequer for subsidy payments.
Germany was also suffering from the dumping of milk products from Holland and quickly imposed a levy. Germany got the Dutch to impose a levy of about 22s. a cwt. on this powder. What is now happening is that the Dutch are imposing a levy of 22s. a cwt. on milk powder going to Germany and are paying a similar subsidy to enable their producers to send it here instead. That is an example of dumping and is against the interests of both agriculture and the nation as a whole. In all these cases, the biggest loser in this country is not the farmer—

Mr. W. Griffiths: I apologise for interrupting so often. If the hon. Member feels as strongly as he does about the

assault on British agriculture, why did he not vote in the House against the Common Market?

Mr. Prior: If the hon. Member had listened to what I said earlier—I do not believe that he was in the Chamber when I began my speech—he would know that I support the Common Market for agriculture. If he would listen to my argument, instead of surrounding it with statements which are not correct, and allow me to elaborate my speech, he would understand my view. I was saying that the biggest loser by far is not the farmer, nor the merchant, but the British taxpayer, because he has to meet the increased bill which arises from this dumping. It is with that in mind that I wish that something could be done about it.
What can we do? I said at the beginning of my speech that we are in difficulty because we have opened negotiations on joining the Common Market, and obviously cannot make any big changes in our policy while those negotiations are taking place.

Mr. Griffiths: Why not?

Mr. Prior: But there are some things which we can do and which would be entirely in line with the thinking of the European Agricultural Commission, which is the Common Market Agricultural Commission. The first is a system of variable import levies. To take the example of barley; we have told the Russians that they must not send us any more barley under £20 a ton, but the corollary of that is that if they want to send it at £21 a ton, we have to take it. In other words, if we needed barley we would have to import it not at £16 a ton, but at £21 a ton, so that we could be paying £5 a ton more than would be actually necessary.
I would have preferred an import levy on barley of £5 a ton, the money being used to pay for some of the subsidies to agriculture. The variable import levy is one of the methods which will be used by the Common Market countries to support their agriculture, and careful consideration should be given to it.
I am certain that we can take quicker action in anticipating trouble. If there is a calendar at the Board of Trade, red ring should be put around the months of February, March, and April,


for Polish eggs, and the same could be done for dairy products like milk powder which always seem to come in in the spring.
We should try to give more instructions and better information to our embassies to enable this information on prices to get back here more quickly. The Board of Trade representative in embassies abroad is a Foreign Office official. He is trying to expand exports as much as he can. He does not pay much attention to the prices of food and the possibility of that food being dumped in this country. In any case, as he is trying to help exports, he would not want to take action or be accused of trying to help to obtain a limitation of exports from that country here. I understand that, but it is important that the Board of Trade should try to get better information from our embassies about the price of food in this country, especially where it is suspected that dumping is taking place.
The other thing we should consider is some form of minimum import price schemes and, leading on from that, international commodity stabilisation arrangement whereby countries with surpluses of food, be it barley or anything else, would try to stabilise both the market and the price. If we can get same sense on those items, I think that we will make progress on this matter.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange who has been asking me a lot of questions, has left the Chamber just as I am about to say something about the Common Market and how I think it will help us. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of reading my speech in HANSARD.
The main objectives of the Common Market policy are similar to those contained in the 1947 Act. They are to increase our agricultural productivity; to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural population; to stabilise markets; and to guarantee regular supplies to consumers at reasonable prices.
Those objectives could be preserved in two ways. First, by controlling markets by having marketing boards for cereals, sugar, dairy products, meat and eggs; target prices and variable levies on imports; and with fruit and vegetables a

comomn external tariff. Secondly, by structural reforms which would correspond closely to our production grants, such as the farm improvement schemes, and so on.
How will the British farmer fit into this? It seems unlikely that we will be able to continue with the February Price Review as such, because negotiations will not be merely with this Government. I think it desirable that each year a review of agriculture, setting out the gross and net returns of the industry, should be compiled, and that the prosperity of the industry should be examined as a whole. After these discussions the Government could put forward the views of the farmers to the Council of Ministers. How would the farmers fit into this? For farmers selling fat-stock and cereals the change would mean that they would no longer receive market price and deficiency payments, but higher prices from the buyer.
Where we have marketing boards, as for milk, eggs and sugar, the present system of payment would continue, but again direct subsidies would mean higher prices from the buyers. All this adds enormous weight to the need to strengthen at once our existing methods and processes of marketing, particularly for cereals and fatstock. I hope that the National Farmers' Union, in conjunction with the Ministry, will straight away get down to the question of better marketing for those products. Target prices will not vary very much from those now ruling, but there is little doubt that the inclusion of Denmark and the need to allow certain duty-free imports from the Commonwealth will exert a downward pressure on prices, particularly meat and dairy products. There is also the factor that grain prices will rise and this will add to livestock costs. It therefore becomes essential that we should turn our attention to better marketing.
Farming opinion on the Continent is relatively more important than here. The standard and layout of farms is not so high or convenient for the most part, so provided we can achieve fair conditions of labour and veterinary standards, and are prepared to work, the threat of lower prices should not be too serious or too real. To a certain extent the changes proposed would be a leap in the dark, but there is still a


chance at the moment of guiding the future agricultural pattern of the Common Market. The implications of all this would be extremely grave for horticulture, but I am not prepared, owing to shortage of time, to go forward into that today.
What safeguards do the British farmers need, and for which we should aim? First, there should be fair competition in labour and no hidden tax reliefs or subsidies of that nature. Secondly, we must preserve our higher standards of animal health and hygiene, and make certain that no imports were accepted from the Common Market countries unless they comply with those standards. Thirdly, we must try to get our farm production grants within the scheme, particularly those relating to small farmers and the social problems of the hill farmers. Fourthly, we want as long a period as we can get for implementation before the Common Market comes into full effect. The date laid down at the moment—1967—would not give us anything like enough time. I suggest that we need at least twelve years, and possibly fifteen far the interim period.
Fifthly, the Government would be wise, on agricultural grounds, to try to build up a large supplementary fund to help out those businesses, whether horticultural or farm businesses, which suffer as a result of the new policy within the Common Market. Sixthly, the liquid milk market should be reserved to this country and completely inviolate from anything that happens within the Common Market. Seventh, the cut in target prices which will be adopted on the Continent, whether in the form of tariffs or of stabilised prices resulting from the action of the commodity boards, should not be greater in any one year than is allowed for under the 1957 Agriculture Act. Lastly, we should try to preserve the landlord and tenant system which has been built up in this country over a great many years and which has great advantages over the Continental systems at the moment.
I hope that in all our consultations and negotiations we shall remember that this country is in a very strong bargaining position. This country is the biggest food importer in the world. It is obvious

that the high-cost protectionist system which the Common Market envisages for agriculture will result in very great production. If they are to keep their agricultural communities prosperous and their farmers and farm workers well paid the Continental countries will have to pay high prices for their produce. That is bound to lead to very great production, and the Common Market countries are undoubtedly looking to us to take their surplus. That puts us in a very strong bargaining position. Our market is their main hope for unloading their surplus and we may take it that that is what they intend to do.
I hope that we shall use our strong bargaining position to obtain for ourselves proper safeguards for our agriculture, as well as protection for the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will be able to work out, in cooperation with the National Farmers' Union, a system which can take us into the Common Market while preserving those safeguards which are necessary for British agriculture, and which also take into account the present unsatisfactory position with regard to the dumping of foodstuffs in this country. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances that the Government have this point very much in mind.

3.9 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I am sure that we are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for raising the subject of dumping, which has caused a great deal of concern to the House and the country in recent months. It is not in the interest of anybody in Britain that this country should merely become the dumping ground for foodstuffs or any other commodities from the rest of the world. It is not in the interests of the consumer that he should have, for instance, cheap eggs for a short period if, as seems likely to be the case, it has an adverse effect upon the ability of the poultry and egg industry in relation to the contribution of a steady flow of reasonably priced eggs throughout the year. That is the effect of a sudden importation of commodities which can be produced very cheaply at a particular time and dumped in this country. It is not in anyone's interest that this should take place.
Is the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act sufficient to give proper protection to the various interests involved? In my submission, it can give proper protection if it is implemented swiftly and surely. There is a growing feeling that it is more speedily implemented now than it used to be, but there is still room for improvement. This is a lawyer's point, but under the Act the President of the Board of Trade must be satisfied about certain matters which are set out in the Act. Time does not permit me to go into them now. At the moment, my right hon. Friend seems to require to be satisfied about these matters beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in a criminal trial. But whether he is not imposing too great a burden on those who have to prove these things to his satisfaction under the Act is open to question. It is wondered whether he should not be more easily satisfied about them than he is at present.
Perhaps different considerations are involved in the case of Iron Curtain countries where G.A.T.T. does not operate. The members of the farming community generally would be very pleased if they could have a statement from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the effect that in future the President of the Board of Trade will be more easily satisfied about the matters contained in the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act so that we may have even more speedy action, for instance, concerning barley or eggs than we have had in the past.
I would welcome another weapon, especially in the case of the Iron Curtain country products, namely, the further use of quotas. There has been great trouble in the past about the importation of strawberry pulp under conditions which appear to amount to dumping. This has largely been overcome by a system of quotas calculated on a tonnage and not a financial basis. It is not expedient that we should alter the present legislation at this stage because this might cause reciprocal action to be taken against our imports, and, in the present context of our economic situation, it is vital that nothing should be done to impede our export drive. If there were stronger legislation, that might be the result.
If the present legislation is implemented even more speedily and with a greater degree of acceptance by the President of the Board of Trade of the representations put to him, then I think that the end which we have in mind can be met in the immediate future with the assistance of the further use of the quota system in the case of Iron Curtain countries.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I apologise to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for not being able to hear his speech. I do not know from where the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) obtained the idea that the department of the Board of Trade which we are discussing is acting with greater speed and expedition now than it used to do.
On 11th July, I asked the President of the Board of Trade what applications concerning anti-dumping action he had under consideration and when they were received. To my astonishment, the reply showed that he had six applications under consideration. One had been under consideration since 25th September, 1959, a second had been under consideration since 3rd June, 1960, and a third had been under consideration since 16th December, 1960.

Mr. Buck: My information was based largely on correspondence which I have had with the N.F.U. For example, the union informed me that the Board of Trade had acted with due expedition, or words to that effect, concerning the dumping of Polish eggs.

Mr. Lipton: The evidence which I am trying to put before the House is the official information which I received from the President of the Board of Trade as recently as 11th July last. Only yesterday I asked the right hon. Gentleman when he was likely to come to a decision in the three cases to which I have referred. Apparently, the Board of Trade got a spurt on, because in respect of the application connected with corduroy fabric coming from Spain, which had been under consideration since 16th December, 1960, the right hon. Gentleman said that a decision had been come to on 28th July. Therefore, in that one case anyhow the right hon. Gentleman


had taken such action as he thought appropriate.
I do not object to deliberation in matters of this kind, but when deliberation becomes indistinguishable from constipation then, of course, it is time that someone examined the machinery and tried to find out what had gone wrong.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, that one of the relevant factors is whether the goods complained of are coming into the country. In the case about which he is speaking the goods were not coming into the country.

Mr. Lipton: In that case, I submit that the Board of Trade might not unreasonably have come to the conclusion that there was no call for any action and that therefore these cases should no longer be under consideration. It is not possible to have it both ways.

Mr. Macpherson: It is possible to have it both ways, because had the goods been coming into the country there would have been reason for taking action. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, we were in consultation with the country concerned and we reached an agreement satisfactory to us both at the end and did not need to put on the antidumping duty.

Mr. Lipton: In that case, if the Board of Trade had come to a satisfactory agreement, there was no point in saying that these matters were still under consideration. I still do not understand why it is that a matter which has been satisfactorily settled by negotiation should still be described as being under consideration. Let us have a little common sense in the matter. I fear that these perhaps not terribly important cases reveal that all is not as it should be. It is certainly time that this particular department of the Board of Trade should be examined so that we do not get a repetition of the somewhat ludicrous state of affairs to which I have referred.

3.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has ranged very widely today over such important subjects as

the Common Market, the working of the Agriculture Acts and the working of the structure under those Acts. What he said on these great topics was most interesting. Part of my hon. Friend's speech was, perhaps, more appropriate to yesterday's debate, though I make no complaint about that. However, I am afraid that the adaptations which our entry into the Common Market will necessitate under the Agriculture Acts is not a matter for me but one for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft has asked me to do today is to speak about the dumping of agricultural foodstuffs. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) his gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft far giving the House an opportunity to discuss the subject of the dumping of foreign foodstuffs in this country. It is now four years since the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act was passed. It is probably still true to say that the provisions of the Act and the procedures under it are not yet fully understood; though perhaps somewhat better understood as a result of the past few months' experience.
Many people do not know when the Act can be invoked and how to set about invoking it. When somebody is hurt it is natural that he should seek to be protected from injury. Sometimes it may be the farmers, sometimes it may be those who supply the farmers. But whoever it is, he wants to be protected. The Act affords protection where an industry in this country or in a country exporting to this country suffers material injury, or is threatened with material injury, as a result of dumping or subsidies, provided that it is in the national interest to give such protection. There are thus three conditions. First, dumping or subsidising of goods imported into this country, secondly, material injury to an industry either in this country or the exporting country, and thirdly, that it is in the national interest to take action.
In the sphere of tariffs we are not free to do as we like for we have undertaken certain obligations. In particular, we signed the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade. By Article 6 of the G.A.T.T. we are entitled to take action


provided for in the Customs Duty (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) seemed to be taking the view that in no circumstances would it be right to stop dumping. But Article VI starts by saying:
The contracting parties recognise that dumping, by which products of one country are introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products, is to be condemned if it causes or threatens material injury to an established industry in the territory of a contracting party or materially retards the establishment of a domestic industry.
I doubt whether the hon. Member would have taken the same view were the manufactures of the industries employing some of his constituents being undercut.
The article permits us to take action against dumped or subsidised imports causing or threatening material injury, but there must be material injury or the threat of it. Before the Board of Trade can start to investigate we must be given some evidence of material injury together with a reasonable suspicion at least that the goods in question are being sold to the buyer country at less than the fair market price in the country of origin apart from subsidy. What constitutes a fair market price and how it is determined is set out in Section 7 of the Act and what is meant by a subsidy in Section 1.
We recognise that it is not always possible for a firm, organisation or a trade association which considers there is material injury to establish the fair market price or provide incontrovertible evidence of subsidy. We do not expect that, but what we must have is evidence of material injury to the industry whether suffered or threatened. I suggest that the best thing for anyone, who is considering putting in an application for protection under the Act, to do, would be to come to the Board of Trade and talk it over as soon as they are aware of an injury actual or expected. Then it would be possible to give some idea of whether a formal application would be likely to succeed or at least to be worth investigating.
Generally speaking, I would say, particularly to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), that the stronger the case the quicker action is likely to be taken

and vice versa. It is the marginal and complex cases which take time. Both of my hon. Friends have posed the question whether the procedure takes too long. In the nine serious applications we have received on foodstuffs since the Act came into force the time taken has varied from eight days in the case of Polish and Rumanian eggs after the application was made—and that resulted in no proceedings—and nineteen days in the case of barley in June of this year—where action was taken—to eleven months in the case of pearl barley from West Germany in June, 1958, where a dumping duty was imposed. Of these nine applications one, the pearl barley application resulted in an order imposing a dumping duty. One was not proceeded with, three were rejected, and four ended in successful negotiations, that is to say, either the subsidy was withdrawn, as in the case of French new potatoes in 1957, or exports were limited, as in the case of Greek new potatoes in 1959, and butter from Sweden, Finland the Argentine and the Irish Republic in 1958, or the minimum price was agreed, as in the case of barley this year, coupled with an agreement on maximum quantity with Soviet Russia.
Can we reduce the time? We are bound to satisfy ourselves on three points. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) wondered whether we are seeking too high a degree of satisfaction. I do not think that is true, but we must be satisfied. If we were to take action on inadequate or faulty evidence, we would be liable to be summoned to defend ourselves in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is particularly important for us not to give an excuse for indiscriminate reprisals. We must, therefore, investigate each case thoroughly.
Once we are satisfied that there is a prima facie case, these are the steps to be taken. First, we have to advertise the case, inviting representatives from interested parties, all of whom must be given a chance to be heard. My hon. Friend will be aware that it is not always in the interests of the farmers to keep the price of imports up. He will recall that two years ago there was dumping of sulphate of ammonia from West Germany and Belgium. It suited the farmers to be able to buy as cheaply as possible, and they were against the imposing of an anti-dumping duty. Last


year, there was an application for an anti-dumping duty on fishmeal from Peru, but it was not established that there was dumping within the meaning of the Act. I say this to show how necessary it is to maintain a balance and for the Board of Trade not only to be impartial but also to be seen to be impartial.
The second step that we have to take is to notify the countries accused of dumping or subsidising and give them a chance to reply. We may carry out an investigation into the prices in the countries of origin, especially in those countries where it is difficult for a private firm or association to do so. At the least, even when the facts are given to us, we have, of course, to verify them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft asked whether we could have this information available in advance, and the home prices certified by the commercial attaché at the Embassy He recognised that the main task of our commercial representatives abroad is to help to sell British goods and that we should distract them as little as possible from that task. Apart from that, to put this extra burden on our overseas representatives would add immensely to the work and the staffs of our High Commissions and Embassies abroad.

Mr. Peter Walker: I appreciate that, but I wonder if my right hon. Friend would give consideration to the possibility of looking at the items which are repeated each year, to see whether each year we can properly accept imports of Polish eggs, for example, and pick out one or two commodities coming in each year to see whether they should be accompanied by a certificate giving the internal price.

Mr. Macpherson: I am sure that where an application has actually arisen, as in the case of Polish eggs, that will be very carefully watched, especially as, even this year, it was established that there was dumping. There was dumping but the question was whether there was material injury.
I put it to the House that, considering how few applications we have had under the Act so far, even in total in addition to the agricultural ones or including them—there have been only

twenty-five investigations so far made out of fifty-nine applications—it seems that the cost of trying to anticipate the sort of products which might be dumped would not be justified. I fully share the view of my hon. Friend, however, that in those cases where there has been an evident case of dumping, or the threat of dumping, we shall carefully watch the positon so that prices in the country of origin Cain be known at short notice. I quite agree with him there.
The fact that we have not dealt with cases more speedily is not due to any reluctance to implement the Act. On the contrary, it is because we are bound to carry out the terms of the Act and to satisfy ourselves that there is dumping or subsidy, that there is material injury to an industry, and that it is in the national interest to give relief from that injury. I repeat the assurance which Ministers gave the House when the Act was before Parliament, that in all appropriate cases we use, and shall use, the powers with speed and determination, as we did in the cases of barley and eggs this year.
I turn to the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned. Dealing briefly with milk powder, I cannot, I am afraid, deal with the application in detail since it is under consideration at present. As my right hon. Friend indicated to the House on 27th July, it is virtually sub judice. It would not be right to go into the merits of that case, but I can say something on the questions of eggs and barley. It is a fact, as my hon. Friend said, that at the end of March there were discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of eggs. On 19th April the National Farmers' Union and the British Egg Marketing Board applied for duties on eggs imported from Poland and Roumania. On 27th April the President of the Board of Trade was able to announce that agreement had been reached with Poland to reduce the level of egg shipments to a relatively insignificant quantity and that Roumanian arrivals would be negligible.
We did not agree with the Poles to reduce sales. They told my right hon. Friend that their planned sales would fall. We decided that actual and prospective imports had not caused, and would not cause, material injury to the


U.K. producer. In this case there was dumping and the threat of material injury because of the level of imports at the time with 60,000 boxes a week against a throughput of 400,000 boxes going through the packing stations. In the first six months of this year total imports from Poland were 480,000 boxes as compared with the packing stations through, put of just over 10 million boxes. There can be no doubt that the Poles will have taken note of what has happened and will have learned from experience this year so that they will do their best to spread out their shipments next year to avoid causing material injury and forcing us to put on an anti-dumping duty.
I turn to the question of barley. It was on 19th June that the National Farmers' Union applied for anti-dumping duties to be put on barley from Russia, France, Australia, the United States of America and West Germany. It was on 4th July that the President of the Board of Trade told the House that he was satisfied that imports were taking place at dumped or subsidised prices, that they threatened material injury to United Kingdom barley growers and that action against the imports would be in the national interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft was quite right about the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 7th July. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) giving information about the amount of barley which on 7th July was due for delivery under existing contracts. My hon. Friend asked how much barley has been sold forward and at what prices. I cannot give him that information. Any information which we have on this subject is obtained from the trade in confidence and it would not be proper for me to disclose it. It is not possible for me to say when the 150,000 tons of Russian barley will be delivered, but the Russians are likely to space their deliveries so as to get the best possible price. In all the circumstances my right hon. Friend decided that the arrangements were satisfactory and would not cause material injury to barley producers.
I hope that I have said enough to show how the Act is working. I think that it is working satisfactorily. Once an application is made to us with the necessary evidence accompanying it, we can proceed with all speed. There is no intention at all by the Board of Trade not to implement the Act. We have the full authority of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to do so, but where we do so it must be in the national interest that we do so.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Alan Brown: In opening this debate I desire to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Speaker for affording us this opportunity of discussing a subject of such importance. I am mindful of the fact that just a year ago, on 29th July, 1960, he accorded me the privilege of opening a debate also connected with the subject of juvenile delinquency, being on that occasion the question of provision of secure accommodation for young offenders.
Today I am happy to say that I am able to open the debate on a far more hopeful tone than was the case a year ago. I will state my reasons for this later. Juvenile delinquency constitutes a problem of the highest social importance. Any pronounced increase in its incidence must constitute a matter of the greatest concern not only to ourselves as legislators, not only to those persons who have a special interest in the welfare of young persons, but also to the entire British people.
It is a matter of grave concern that juvenile delinquency is not only a social tragedy but a social evil, and an evil which presents a direct threat to the wellbeing of our nation, a threat both to our future society and our future economic well-being. I say this because there is a direct relationship between adult crime and juvenile delinquency. I assure the House that research clearly shows that more than half of our adult criminals begin their lives as juvenile delinquents. It is, therefore, a matter of paramount importance that we halt and reverse the trend of juvenile delinquency. It is only by doing this that we can hope to reduce our shockingly high crime figures.
I think it would be true to say that the question which is uppermost in the minds of Press and public alike is this: are the Government enjoying any measure of success in achieving this desirable objective, and if not, what should be done to reverse the present upward trend in crime? Hon. Members will no doubt, have noticed that last Wednesday our national newspapers gave great prominence to two Reports dealing with crime which had been published the day previously. I refer to the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis together with that of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year 1960. A shocked Press revealed to an uneasy public that crime had reached a peak never before known in this country; further, that it is still rising, and that for the first time on record the total number of indictable and non-indictable offences in the Metropolitan area exceed 200,000, or an average of 550 crimes a day.
A closer study of the crime statistics contained in these Reports reveal that during 1960 the number of juveniles found guilty before the courts had increased to 107,000. Of this total 57,360 were found guilty of indictable offences. The contents of these Reports proved too much for some of our national newspapers, and one on 2nd August devoted its entire editorial to an article called "Spotlight on Crime". This reaction can surely be accepted as ample evidence of the grave concern which these Reports have caused, and understandably so.
Such Reports are of great value, and this country is fortunate in that annual records of criminal statistics have been kept since as long ago as 1857. I would, however, in all humility warn students of criminology that criminal statistics are full of pitfalls and that the utmost caution should be exercised in interpreting figures or in arriving at conclusions. For example, figures of crimes known to the police would obviously appear to be a better guide to the trend of criminality among the population than those of persons charged before the courts. In fact, however, they are much more unreliable due to variations in reporting and recording.
It is also necessary to exercise great caution when somebody boldly states that the incidence of crime or delinquency is higher in one country

than in another—that, for example, juvenile delinquency is higher in Britain than it is in France or Sweden or Russia or the United States. It must be remembered that a delinquent, whether juvenile or adult, is a person who offends against the laws of the country or the State in which he or she lives. It follows, therefore, that the person who is classed as a delinquent in one country may not be so classed in another.
It should also be noted that in Britain there exist laws relating to children and young persons which, if broken by a juvenile, bring him or her into the delinquent class. Such laws are not operative against adults. A typical example was the case last year of the girl in Holloway Prison. Originally prosecuted for playing truant from school, she was made the subject of a probation order which she broke. This breach led to her being remanded to Holloway Prison under Section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. An adult who is not subject to the laws relating to juveniles could never have received such treatment. I know of no law which could land an adult in prison simply because he refused to go to work.
Let us, with due caution, proceed to examine the latest statistics relating to juvenile delinquency. I will first deal with the figures for indictable offences, because it is here that the trend in juvenile delinquency is truly reflected. During 1956, 57,360 juveniles were found guilty before the courts of serious and indictable offences. A year ago, when we were discussing the same problem, we had before us the figures for 1959. Hon. Members will recall that the figure then was 53,183. Thus, for the sixth year in succession, the rise in the number of serious and indictable offences committed by juveniles has increased, and from 1959 the figure has gone up by more than 4,177.
While this news was received with disappointment by both Press and public, it was not completely unexpected by those connected with the problem of juvenile delinquency. The inescapable fact is that over the past five years each year has seen an increase in the number of juveniles found guilty before the courts of indictable offences. In 1955 the figure was 35,513. In 1957 it leapt to 45,107 and last year it rose to 53,183. In 1960 it has reached the figure of 57,360. This


means that over the past five years each succeeding year has seen an average of 4,370 more juveniles found guilty of indictable offences.
As no steps whatever had been taken to combat the upward trend of juvenile delinquency during the years under review there was, of course, no reason to suppose that the figure for 1960 would other than maintain that average annual upward trend of 4,000-plus which, in fact, it has done.
I come now to the problem of the number of juveniles found guilty before the courts of all offences, indictable and otherwise. The figure for 1960 is 107,000. In 1959 it was 99,559. Over the preceding four years the rise had been at the rate of an average of 10,000 a year, from 60,666 in 1955. This upward trend is still with us, but we can take comfort from the knowledge that the increase in the number of juveniles found guilty before the courts of all charges increased by only 7,441 over the figure for 1959. This is about 2,500 less than was expected and, in conjunction with certain steps recently taken by the Home Secretary and which should start to become effective in the coming months, there is reasonable cause to believe that the tide is now about to turn.
The measures which the Home Secretary has taken in the last twelve months, and which cannot be expected to be reflected in the statistics for 1960, are really progressive. It is my opinion that more real progress has been made during the past twelve months to halt the ever-increasing incidence of juvenile delinquency than has been achieved in the past half-century.
We must be patient, though, because it will take time before the benefits deriving from the Home Secretary's positive steps during the past year begin to be adequately reflected in our annual statistics of juvenile delinquency. The complexity and confusion that abound in this vitally important sphere of social rescue and rehabilitation—the product of the neglect of successive Governments over more than fifty years—cannot be eradicated by the stroke of a pen. The problem of the juvenile, both the offender and the non-offender, is a highly complex subject.
Let us consider the legislation directly affecting the juvenile that has been passed in the last decade alone. In that period, eight Acts have passed through Parliament: the Children Act, 1948; the Criminal Justice Act, 1948; the Adoption Act, 1958; the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958; the Legitimacy Act, 1959; the Mental Health Act, 1959, and the Children Act, 1958 which, as hon. Members may recall, received the Royal Assent in August, 1958, only to have its entire Part II promptly repealed in December of the same year. I shall deal with the eighth Act in a moment, because in it are maintained the progressive steps to which I have referred.
It should be realised that those seven Acts are themselves largely integrated with a number of earlier Measures such as the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Children Act, 1908, and a number of reforms passed in the last century, dating back to the Industrial School Act, 1861. Such was the mass of piecemeal legislation that confronted the Home Secretary only twelve months ago; a mass of legislation which, from my own experience, I know was alarmingly complex, frequently conflicting and usually quite unworkable if the best interests of the juvenile were to be placed first.
In short, the right hon. Gentleman was confronted with a fantastic system consisting of the old penal system, to which an effort had been made to graft new and more enlightened methods of treatment from time to time over the last century—because all these schoolchildren of fourteen were still being remanded to notorious prisons like Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs.
The eighth Act is the Criminal Justice Act, 1961. Brought in by the Home Secretary, it contains measures representing the biggest step forward in legislation relating to young offenders since the original Children Act, 1908—which Act, by the way, provided for the establishment of juvenile courts. It also attempted to close prisons to children under 16 but, unfortunately, never succeeded in doing so.
In the new Act we see at long last a complete attempt to end the system of treatment of the young offender which had for far too long contained methods


of treatment long since outmoded. Steps have been taken to ensure that no longer will juveniles be sent to prisons. Incidentally, I should like the Minister to tell us whether the Wormwood Scrubs boys' prison has now been closed; I am informed that it has.
Gone for ever, also, is the unfortunate compromise, for so long practised, of attempting to house the new spirit of education within the old prison system. In such prison surroundings a juvenile inevitably mixed with older youths and others more hardened in criminality. A juvenile is particularly susceptible to criminal indoctrination, so that such prison treatment, far from acting as a deterrent, could only have the opposite effect. How true indeed are the words of Goethe:
Children, like dogs, have a scent so sharp that they detect everything—the bad before all the rest.
The Daily Mail has fought hard in the battle to end the imprisoning of children, which a year ago it so rightly described as a stepping stone to a rake's progress and a system which meant that children were bundled together with possibly hardened criminals, and a system which should he smashed. I thank the Daily Mail for its powerful support. The system has now been smashed and it has played a major part in achieving the victory.
In my view, this criminal indoctrination of the young has been one of the main causes of the ever-increasing incidence of juvenile delinquency. We can all take renewed hope for the future in seeing the back of it. Other progressive steps which have been taken include far wider provisions for the use of borstal training and of detention centres for the social rescue and rehabilitation of the young offender. This is also most important because juvenile delinquents are, in most cases, the victims of bad social background or act under their own retarded or morbid mental development or immaturity. The former practice of subjecting them to treatment which had no educational value and did nothing to discover or destroy the root of the evil was quite useless.
The Home Secretary's decision to make wider provision of borstal training and detention centres is praiseworthy and will go a long way in preventing

further development of criminal tendencies in juvenile delinquents and, further, can, in most cases, be expected to effect the social rescue of the youngster.
There is much more work to be done and there are further steps which might well be taken. I recommend that consideration be given by the Minister to the drafting of a new Children and Young Persons Act. In many respects, the 1933 Act does not meet the requirements of a changed society in the year 1961.
I have been asked to say a few words on the possible causes underlying the ever-rising incidence of juvenile delinquency. I have mentioned one reason and there are, of course, others. It was recently mentioned in another place that in spite of the enormous amount of research into juvenile delinquency—and, admittedly, to date more than twenty committees have reported—we are still at the stage of knowing very little which can be scientifically proved. My view after ten years' work in this subject is that the causes of juvenile delinquency will never be proved scientifically. Science works to clearly defined rules. The human mind in general, and that of the juvenile in particular, certainly never does. The use of plain common sense is far more likely to present us with an accurate answer to these human problems.
No child is born into the world to be good or bad. He is as bad or as good as we adults make it possible for him to be. Under this premise, the question of what causes juvenile delinquency or what influences are of prime importance in deciding whether a young person will be both willing and fitted to play his part in the life of the community resolves itself into this question: who, in the first instance, makes it possible for a child to be good or bad? There is only one answer—the parent.

It being Four o'clock the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]

Mr. Brown: Not enough attention has been paid in my opinion by any of the Committees to the vital rôle of the parent. The greatest factor for good or evil in the life of a child is his parents. The


strongest bond of human sympathy is the family circle.
The problem of growing up in a changing society is not new. It has had to be faced and overcome by every succeeding generation. I assure the House from my own experience that there is nothing wrong with British youth today; they are intelligent and of good physique, and they display qualities of courage and fortitude to a markedly high degree. But I would say that the difficulty of the older generation to understand the younger generation, a difficulty which has always existed to some degree, has increased dangerously during the past fifteen years. I further say that the constant criticism of the younger generation by the older generation leaves youth puzzled and resentful.
The present-day tendency to avoid parental responsibilities by passing such responsibilities to the police and to the child-care service of the local authority is a feature of modern parenthood which I consider to be deplorable. Furthermore, the Welfare State seems to have given rise to a class of parents who are selfish, irresponsible and inconsistent. Confusion abounds to confront youth today. Religious teaching and beliefs and the long-established sense of moral values are all being scoffed at and discarded by the adult population, as the world rapidly advances in so-called scientific knowledge. The youngsters find it difficult to believe in anything, including the security of their own future, in this atomic age. I will go as far as to say that there are very few adults sufficiently reliable and consistent to be in a position to present with confidence a scale of values acceptable to youth.
We must all resolve to become better parents. Let us remember the old saying, "Train your child in the way you now know you should have gone yourself." I think that every incentive should be made available to parents to exercise their responsibility. Nothing should be done to undermine the authority of the father as the head of the family. The rights of the parent should be respected by the State at all times, and no responsibility which is clearly and morally the prerogative of the father should be arbitrarily surrendered to officials of local authorities. In no circumstances should a child be

parted from its parents and made the subject of a fit person's order unless there is no other alternative.
I conclude by saying that we can succeed in our fight to reduce the incidence of juvenile delinquency, because it is clear that the heart and the will to do so are there.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) for raising this most important problem before the House this afternoon. There can be no easy or quick solution to juvenile delinquency in its present form. This afternoon I should like to consider one or two matters in respect of juvenile crime in which we can be straightforward and practical.
One of the greatest difficulties with which any court has to contend when dealing with a juvenile is that it has to consider what can be done with him or her. As things stand, there is very little which can be done, apart from sending him to a detention centre, approved school, or borstal. The courts should be empowered to impose suspended sentences.
Suspended sentences have been ruled against by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which of course means that no court in the land would dream of imposing one, that court having ruled in that way. But the duty of the Court of Criminal Appeal is to interpret the law and it is our duty to make the laws. The time has come for Parliament to overrule the Court of Criminal Appeal in this respect.

Mr. Speaker: It is clearly our duty to make the law, but on this Question we cannot discuss legislation.

Mr. Crowder: What normally happens when a juvenile comes before the court is that he is placed on probation for two or three years and told quite firmly that if he commits any other offence, he will be brought back and punished for the crime which he has already committed. The result of that is that the youth leaves the court feeling that he has got away with it completely. I would like to see the courts able to say to him that if he returns to the court having committed another offence, he


will be sent to borstal or a detention centre, unless the court to which he is returned thinks otherwise. I am sure that psychologically the idea in the mind of a child or youth that that will be the penalty if he commits another offence would have a much greater effect than the present system.
I would also like to empower probation officers to have the right to take anybody in their care round a prison. Let some of these youths see the inside of a prison for a couple of hours, for the first time in their lives, and it will have a great effect upon them.
Equally, we have a problem with juveniles on the roads. Many of these young men are earning £10, £12 or £15 a week. Very often some of their money is spent on alcohol. I am not suggesting that they get into a car when they are not fit to drive because of alcohol, but youthful enthusiasm combined with a little drink can make them very dangerous drivers. I do not see why the courts should not have the right to impose a penalty on the youthful dangerous driver that he should have to carry a red D—instead of a red L—for any period, six months or a year, which the court thinks fit.
We have to deal with these people psychologically. They are human beings. Practising in the criminal court and sitting as deputy chairman of quarter sessions and as a recorder, I know something of their mentality. Many of them are much more tough, ruthless and hardboiled than some of us imagine.
In the old days the matter was simply dealt with by the village policeman, who took the youth into the police station and gave him a good hiding. If the village policeman were to do that today, instead of being given what he should be given, promotion, he would probably be dismissed the force.

Mr. A. Brown: The juvenile is a person under the age of 17, subject to the juvenile courts. I have not introduced the question of that group of over 17 and under 21 who are normally referred to as young adults.

Mr. Crowder: I am obliged to the hon. Member.
The hon. Member spoke of the parents and rightly said that parents should be

treated with respect by the State. I agree with that entirely. But has the hon. Gentleman been to a juvenile court and seen how parents are treated? They are paraded in front of the magistrates with their children standing in front of them. Time and again I have seen magistrates literally tick off the parents in front of the children. Such a practice is rather like ticking off officers in front of men in the Army. It is wholly undesirable. The parents should sit apart from their children, because the inevitable result of the present practice is that the child feels that his parents are standing behind him and backing him up in the crime for which he has been brought before the court. I should like to see a marked change in the present practice.
I know that the Government are not so minded, but I cannot see why magistrates could not be empowered to impose corporal punishment in the form of the cane on juvenile delinquents. I say that for the simple reason that it hurts, and they do not like it. It is a deterrent, and it does not do very much harm if it is not applied too forcibly.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine. How on earth can he say that? There is no evidence that flogging or hitting people is a deterrent and reduces crime.

Mr. Crowder: I cannot today produce evidence to show that it makes any difference, but I do not think that anybody will disagree with me when I say they do not like it.

Mr. A. R. Wise: There is some evidence. The most expensive system of education in the world is based on it.

Mr. Griffiths: What a lot we have here.

Mr. Crowder: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I hope that the Home Office will make a genuine effort to speed up the building of these new detention centres. Time and again at quarter sessions and in magistrates' courts one has a case which is ideal for a detention centre. The probation officer rings up, and time and again the answer comes back, "We are awfully sorry, but there is no vacancy."
The Government have been a trifle dilatory in this respect. The great thing about a detention centre is that the youth who has committed a crime is given some discipline and hardship. He is given the right sort of discipline. He is given physical exercise and hard work for a short period of between three and six months, and experience shows that three months is about the most effective period which can be imposed. I hope that the Government will press ahead with the building of these new detention centres which are so essential.

4.13 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I must thank the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown), who has great experience in this field over many years, for raising this subject, I think for the second year running. I must thank him particularly for the kind words he said about the activities of my right hon. Friend, who unfortunately was not here to hear those kind words, but I will repeat them to him.
We are discussing a subject which is very near the minds and hearts of the vast majority of our population, the subject of juvenile delinquency. The causes of this phenomenon were briefly touched on by the hon. Gentleman. He concentrated on the breakdown of family life and parental responsibility, and of course we all echo his words.
I should like to touch on another feature of our modern life which may equally be responsible for some of the delinquency. I must make it clear that this is my personal view, but I do not think that anyone will disagree with it.
It seems to me that modern society is built on so vast a scale and is so impersonal—and, at the same time, the protective and regulatory features of modern society are so all-embracing—that it gives very little scope for the natural ebullience and the desire of young people, who are not in the first instance necessarily criminally-minded, to live dangerously and to make a noise.
Youth is a time of abounding energy—energy which used to be taken up in the bitter struggle to earn one's daily bread

but now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) pointed out, it often finds that money is more easily come by and that possibly the exhaustion of that struggle, therefore, does not exist. But there is the opportunity for employing these instincts and desires on the roads and in places where they are very dangerous. It can be argued that with the affluent and the regulatory society has come the closing of various avenues, such as running away to sea, enlisting in foreign legions, and all the things that young people who, out of an excess of spirits, used to do. Owing to the protective regulations under which we live, fewer and fewer avenues seem open to them.
That being so, it may happen that the only avenue open to them is the motor bicycle upon the roads.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Is the hon. Member really saying that in 1961, after eleven years of Tory rule, the only avenue open to ambitious young men and women is to ride fast motor bicycles on the roads? That is outrageous.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am sorry if the hon. Member thinks that it is outrageous. I believe that the danger on the roads, from perfectly well-disposed young men who are in other ways quite proper citizens, is a very real one, and I believe that most hon. Members would agree with that. I do not think I am saying anything very extreme. It is a serious problem. We know of the excellent work that is being done by such organisations as the Outward Bound Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, and other bodies who seek to reawaken the spirit of adventure in our youth and turn it to good account, but their efforts cannot reach all the young people. Is it surprising that a number of them tend to emulate the more childish features of the adult world—its violence and its greed?
The hon. Member for Tottenham examined in some detail the statistics of crime for 1960, and I am glad that his conclusion was that the tide was about to turn. He thought that this was largely on account of the work that my right hon. Friend had done in the last twelve months on the Criminal Justice Act, especially in the separation of young people from hardened criminals. In this regard I am happy to tell him that


Wormwood Scrubs prison is no longer taking young offenders on remand. They are going to the remand centre at Ashford. There are still some young offenders sentenced to imprisonment who are serving their sentences there, and offenders who are sentenced outside London to borstal training go there for allocation to their borstal, but those two classes are totally segregated from the adult criminals.
The number of young people under 17 years of age found guilty of indictable offences continues to increase. For those aged 14 and under 17 it rose (in round figures) from 25,300 in 1959 to 27,400 1960, while the number convicted under 14 years of age rose from 27,800 in 1959 to 29,900 in 1960. In considering these figures and comparing them with those for earlier years, however, we must bear in mind that our juvenile population as a whole has been increasing, so that even if the proportion of delinquents has remained stable some increase in their absolute numbers was only to be expected. If we are to get a clear view of the problem, it is better to discount the effect of the rise in population and to look at the situation in terms of the proportion of delinquents to the total number of their age group.
If we do that, we find that among children under 14 years the proportion of boys found guilty of indictable offences in 1960 was 1,250 per 100,000. Although this figure is larger than the corresponding figure in 1959, it is smaller than the figure in 1951, when it was 1,500 per 100,000. Thus, although, as the hon. Member painted out, the encouraging decline in the proportion of delinquents under 14 years between 1958 and 1959 has, unhappily, not continued, it is a long way from being as bad as it was ten years ago. I have chosen the year 1951 for comparison because that was the peak year for delinquency, when we feared that the figures would never stop rising. However, in the interval they passed through a trough in 1954–55, when many people looked forward to a continuing fall.
For the older age group, the picture is less comforting. The rate of indictable crime among youths aged 14 and under 17 is higher than ever before—2,400 per 100,000 compared with some 2,000 in 1951. Among those aged 17 and under 21, the story is much the same—an in-

crease in the number of offenders in relation to population and a startling increase in absolute numbers of convictions of 12 per cent. for youths and 20 per cent. for girls between 1959 and 1960.
The statistics which I have quoted show that delinquency is not so prevalent among the youngest age groups as it was once among some of their predecessors at the same age. The hon. Member for Tottenham was quite right in giving a warning about the danger of statistics in this field as in almost every other. We must remember that statistics may reflect things other than the level of juvenile crime—for instance, an increase in police activity or a greater readiness to deal with juvenile offences, particularly those involving personal violence, by prosecution. On the other hand, it would be wrong to suppose that there was any action the Government could take which would be immediate and lasting in its effect. The causes of delinquency are deep-seated, and, in our view, they can be countered only by remedial action emending over a long period in which the Government must rely on the community as a whole to play its part.
Hon. Members will have seen the large programme of research into crime and the treatment of offenders which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined in an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on 17th July. This includes an inquiry by the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge into the development of delinquent tendencies in children, a survey by the Usher Institute at Edinburgh of the progress of 5,000 children born in 1946, and research by Nottingham University into differences in parental attitudes to children's upbringing. We hope that all these projects will enlarge our understanding of the causes of the problem which the hon. Gentleman has put before the House.
Meanwhile, we cannot postpone action because we have not complete knowledge; the problem is too serious for that. We have to go on the knowledge that we have. We have recently had the Criminal Justice Act, and the hon. Gentleman has paid great tribute to its provisions. As he rightly said, the main theme of the Act is to separate the treatment of young offenders from the


treatment of the old. The treatment of young offenders should be primarily remedial and should be carried out in separate institutions or separate sections of institutions.
For offenders under 17 years, sentences of imprisonment will be abolished altogether. The minimum age for borstal training will be reduced to fifteen and provision is being made for the transfer from approved schools to borstal of those who cannot or will not respond to approved school training but will benefit from borstal training. At the same time, we are providing within the approved school system means of dealing with young offenders suitable for approved school training if they can be held in conditions of security. There is also the provision for raising the fines imposed not only on the child but also on his parents. It enables a court to send delinquents to an attendance centre at an earlier age, and the question as to whether any new form of non-residential treatment can be devised is, as hon. Members may know, being considered by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood who was anxious that the expense of punishment should be cheapened, perhaps, by one means or another. The use of attendance centres and nonresidential treatment is certainly cheaper than having recourse to residential treatment. But, of course, the new legislation under the Act requires a great deal of preparatory work—the building of detention centres, the provision of new approved schools and the rebuilding of approved schools. Indeed, the approved school building programme, which will cost over £5 million in its present phase, will result in improvements or extensions to over 100 of the 117 schools and we shall need more schools with the population bulge and the higher rate of intake. Sites have been selected for three new schools to be provided by local authorities and sites are being sought for another seven schools to be provided by either local authorities or voluntary organisations.
We are establishing more detention centres, priority being given to those for

offenders aged 17 to 21, where the demand is the greatest, but at least two more centres for the under 17s are to be provided. It is my right hon. Friend's intention eventually to make a senior and a junior detention centre available to every court. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood knows well the exacting programme of the training and of the regime in those detention centres.
We hope to provide more attendance centres in areas where a sufficient number of suitable offenders come before the courts. We opened a remand centre in Ashford which is receiving young offenders from London and the Home Counties for those aged 17 to 21 and for those under 21 who now have to be remanded to prison. I know that this must be particularly welcome to the hon. Member for Tottenham.
One of the most remarkable and, I think, not altogether easily explained features of the statistics which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are those relating to the rapid increase in the conviction of young girls who hitherto do not seem to have played a great rôle in the rise in juvenile delinquency. We intend to provide remand centres for girls. We propose to provide separate accommodation for girls in four of the centres now being built or planned outside the London area. The first of these at Risley in Lancashire will be opened in 1963. A site has been obtained for boys and girls at Low Newton, near Durham and the Prison Commissioners are seeking planning permission for others at Pucklechurch, near Bristol, and at Hewell Grange, near Redditch. When these are available a remand centre for girls should be available to every court outside the London area, and for the London area we intend, when the new women's prisons are built, to convert Holloway into a remand centre for both sexes.
I am afraid that in the time available I have not been able to go into the matter with which I think all hon. Members are most concerned, namely, to what extent this problem is being tackled in our educational system as well as in the other forms of social work. The House will recall that in the education debate on 17th July my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education spoke at some length of the work of


the schools in this regard. But the root of the matter lies in the community, in the standards which society sets before young people, in the attitudes and examples shown them by adults, in the acceptance by parents of responsibilities, and, in my view, in spite of what the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) may say, in the facilities which society provides for the natural outlet of the ebullience and high spirits of youth, to see that they are directed into the proper channels and not into the improper ones of the fast motorcycle, hard drinking and association with hardened criminals.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Would my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest problems upon which he touched was the lack of co-operation between schools and parents? So often the schools and the parents tend not to work together.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half-an-hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday, 24th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 1st August.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.